http://time.com/5142592/rachel-brand-leaving-justice-department/

2/9/2018 6:00:06 PM

Unrelated to the Rachel Brand news:

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/09/donald-trump-russia-election-nsa/

Quote :

"THE UNITED STATES intelligence community has been conducting a top-secret operation to recover stolen classified U.S. government documents from Russian operatives, according to sources familiar with the matter. The operation has also inadvertently yielded a cache of documents purporting to relate to Donald Trump and Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election..."

Mike Pompeo’s politicization of the CIA would appear to be a bigger story than Russians potentially having information about Donald Trump.

[Edited on February 9, 2018 at 6:19 PM. Reason : ]

2/9/2018 6:13:54 PM

Wow.

2/9/2018 6:31:34 PM

Quote :

"But by last fall, the Russian began passing information to the American intermediary that was unrelated to the Shadow Brokers, including the names of specific individuals and corporate entities allegedly tied to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. "

Cambridge Analytica? Or maybe more mundane like gazprom/rosneft?

A full reading of that article just makes the CIA seem like it's losing. Bigly.

2/9/2018 6:51:13 PM

Could be. There were Russian cyber/intel people charged with treason in Dec of 2016.

[Edited on February 9, 2018 at 6:57 PM. Reason : i'm an idiot]

2/9/2018 6:52:46 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/09/politics/democratic-memo-trump-wont-declassify/index.html

Trump blocks Dem memo haha, go figure.

Also, regarding the Intercept article, NY Times wrote up with more details that may indicate there's nothing there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=15355C317B1B4E69ABD5953EC2FDBC1E&gwt=pay

Quote :

"Several American intelligence officials said they made clear that they did not want the Trump material from the Russian, who was suspected of having murky ties to Russian intelligence and to Eastern European cybercriminals. He claimed the information would link the president and his associates to Russia. Instead of providing the hacking tools, the Russian produced unverified and possibly fabricated information involving Mr. Trump and others, including bank records, emails and purported Russian intelligence data. The United States intelligence officials said they cut off the deal because they were wary of being entangled in a Russian operation to create discord inside the American government. They were also fearful of political fallout in Washington if they were seen to be buying scurrilous information on the president. "

Quote :

"The episode ended this year with American spies chasing the Russian out of Western Europe, warning him not to return if he valued his freedom, the American businessman said. The Trump material was left with the American, who has secured it in Europe. The Russian claimed to have access to a staggering collection of secrets that included everything from the computer code for the cyberweapons stolen from the N.S.A. and C.I.A. to what he said was a video of Mr. Trump consorting with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room in 2013, according to American and European officials and the Russian, who agreed to be interviewed in Germany on the condition of anonymity. There remains no evidence that such a video exists. The Russian was known to American and European officials for his ties to Russian intelligence and cybercriminals — two groups suspected in the theft of the N.S.A. and C.I.A. hacking tools. But his apparent eagerness to sell the Trump “kompromat” — a Russian term for information used to gain leverage over someone — to American spies raised suspicions among officials that he was part of an operation to feed the information to United States intelligence agencies and pit them against Mr. Trump. Early in the negotiations, for instance, he dropped his asking price from about $10 million to just over $1 million. Then, a few months later, he showed the American businessman a 15-second clip of a video showing a man in a room talking to two women. "

Quote :

"No audio could be heard on the video, and there was no way to verify if the man was Mr. Trump, as the Russian claimed. But the choice of venue for showing the clip heightened American suspicions of a Russian operation: The viewing took place at the Russian Embassy in Berlin, the businessman said. There were other questions about the Russian’s reliability. He had a history of money laundering and a thin legitimate cover business — a nearly bankrupt company that sold portable grills for streetside sausage salesmen, according to British incorporation papers. “The distinction between an organized criminal and a Russian intelligence officer and a Russian who knows some Russian intel guys — it all blurs together,” said Steven L. Hall, the former chief of Russia operations at the C.I.A. “This is the difficulty of trying to understand how Russia and Russians operate from the Western viewpoint.” "

[Edited on February 9, 2018 at 8:50 PM. Reason : Times]

[Edited on February 9, 2018 at 8:52 PM. Reason : a]

2/9/2018 8:43:20 PM

I'll post the link to the source later but this headline in my email fucking killed me:

Russian scientists at a top-secret facility were arrested for using a supercomputer to mine Bitcoin.

2/9/2018 10:51:49 PM

hahaha what

2/10/2018 2:05:00 AM

Is the CIA trying to claim they were willing to pay money for a thumb drive of their own hacking tools? Did they forget to make backups at the office and lose them completely when they were hacked? How could anyone believe this was anything more than trying to buy dirt on Trump only to realize it's all made up?

Maybe the CIA will leak the 15 second pisstape trailer next.

2/10/2018 10:04:02 AM

My understanding is that the CIA was hoping to learn specifically which tools had been compromised by the breach.

2/10/2018 11:04:36 AM

^

2/10/2018 12:54:25 PM

It is suspicious that they used the word "recover", though. I can see both sides of this one.

If eleusis is right, there will be a news story in the next couple weeks elaborating on how Russians gave US intelligence info on the Trump campaign directly.

[Edited on February 10, 2018 at 5:36 PM. Reason : .]

2/10/2018 5:36:01 PM

https://www.thenation.com/article/what-weve-learned-in-year-one-of-russiagate/

2/11/2018 2:10:10 AM

^^ you're aware that the author used that word, not the cia right? seems weird to read that much into it.

2/11/2018 8:31:27 AM

Quote :

"If eleusis is right, there will be a news story in the next couple weeks elaborating on how Russians gave US intelligence info on the Trump campaign directly."

this article practically spells out that the CIA was obtaining the same information from the Steele dossier and knew it was part of a Russian disinformation campaign. they viewed a teaser video at the Russian embassy at Berlin. If the American embassy in Berlin is the home base for CIA hacking operations due to the ease of getting spooks into the country, the Russian embassy there likely operates the same way.

2/11/2018 11:10:26 AM

This Nation article is kind of nonsense. For starters, it says "the memo makes a plausible case that a surveillance warrant of campaign volunteer Carter Page was obtained on questionable grounds." It does not make any sort of plausible case at all. 1/3rd of it undermines another 1/3rd of it, among other things.

Here's another completely wrong statement: "Furthermore, as NBC News notes, “no evidence has emerged publicly to contradict Veselnitskaya’s account that she wanted to press a case about U.S. Magnitsky Act sanctions, and that she did not possess significant derogatory information about Clinton,” notwithstanding Goldstone’s pitch. “Moreover, no evidence has emerged publicly that connects the Russians in the meeting with the Russian intelligence effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.”

The email exchanges with Don Jr. himself for starters contradict this entirely. As for connecting the Russians with Russian intel's effort, the emails literally say it. Also:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/russian-lawyer-veselnitskaya-was-in-contact-with-kremlin-before-trump-tower-meeting-in-2016-report-2017-10-27

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russian-lawyer-brought-ex-soviet-counter-intelligence-officer-trump-team-n782851

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/16/opinions/curious-rise-of-russian-lawyer-veselnitskaya-opinion-weiss/index.html

Yet another completely wrong statement: "Both scenarios also call into question another foundation of Russiagate, the series of Clinton-campaign-funded intelligence reports written by former British spy Christopher Steele."

The Clinton campaign did not fund Steele's intelligence reports. They paid a political research firm to gather information. The research firm then contracted Steele to gather information. Clinton did not hire Steele and say "manufacture some shit for me." I am so sick of seeing this. And as for veracity, he reported shit in memos that literally came true months later. He's not a time traveler.

Quote :

"this article practically spells out that the CIA was obtaining the same information from the Steele dossier and knew it was part of a Russian disinformation campaign. they viewed a teaser video at the Russian embassy at Berlin. If the American embassy in Berlin is the home base for CIA hacking operations due to the ease of getting spooks into the country, the Russian embassy there likely operates the same way."

Not what happened. Here is what happened:

Steele's info goes to FBI (the agency that is actually allowed to investigate Americans).

On a completely separate track, the CIA/NSA are attempting to conduct a foreign intelligence operation. The goal is to ascertain what tools were stolen from the NSA when they were hacked. The tools specifically are digital tools to penetrate networks and systems and gather information while also neutralizing hardware. They know things were stolen. They know some of the specifics. They don't know the full scope of what was taken.

While doing this, someone volunteers to give them the full scope (or at least more of it) in exchange for immunity in the United States. For whatever reason, no deal could be made (probably Americans either refusing to provide immunity without knowing the full scope of crimes this individual has committed, refusing to provide immunity for certain crimes out of the full scope, or because the individual ultimately was stringing them along.

The dude, instead of providing cyber shit, just starts giving them information on Trump that appeared to simply be shit he collected from reading news reports. They walked away for several reasons: the information did not seem to have actually been compiled from official intelligence sources (that is, the physical documents they were given did not appear to have been written by actual Russian intelligence officers when compared with information they've previously received from Russian intelligence); the information concerned US citizens and as such, the CIA/NSA, given the current scrutiny on them for "mass surveillance of Americans" and the like, said we don't want it; the individual continued to ignore what they did want and only push this stuff leading them to believe it may be a disinformation campaign.

This does not mean that they viewed this information and said "this is bullshit" and then say "the Steele information is bullshit." It means they had a source who claimed to have intelligence who was just giving them shit from the news and therefore they viewed HIM as not credible. Has nothing to do with the underlying information.

As for the tape they viewed, the fact that the individual was not identifiable (on the clip they were shown) gave them even more reason to believe it was simply someone making shit up either for money or as an attempt to screw their credibility over at a later point.

As for the "ease of getting spooks into the country" comment, not really sure what you're getting at here. It is incredibly easy to get assets into a country. They literally go in as employees of the embassies and consulates. It's called diplomatic cover. And foreign intelligence personnel pretty much assume that every single person who works at an embassy or consulate or mission or whatever is a member of the CIA or NSA. They start with that assumption and strike people off the list based on what they learn from surveilling them. Berlin isn't the "home" of American cyber warriors. Their "home" is Fort Meade, Maryland.

2/11/2018 1:01:55 PM

Quote :

"This Nation article is kind of nonsense. For starters, it says "the memo makes a plausible case that a surveillance warrant of campaign volunteer Carter Page was obtained on questionable grounds." It does not make any sort of plausible case at all. 1/3rd of it undermines another 1/3rd of it, among other things."

There are lots of people on the left and right who disagree.

Quote :

"Here's another completely wrong statement: "Furthermore, as NBC News notes, “no evidence has emerged publicly to contradict Veselnitskaya’s account that she wanted to press a case about U.S. Magnitsky Act sanctions, and that she did not possess significant derogatory information about Clinton,” notwithstanding Goldstone’s pitch. “Moreover, no evidence has emerged publicly that connects the Russians in the meeting with the Russian intelligence effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.” The email exchanges with Don Jr. himself for starters contradict this entirely. As for connecting the Russians with Russian intel's effort, the emails literally say it."

They cut off part of the quote for some reason:

Quote :

"No evidence has emerged publicly to contradict Veselnitskaya’s account that she wanted to press a case about U.S. Magnitsky Act sanctions, and that she did not possess significant derogatory information about Clinton, despite the email from a music promoter to Trump Jr. promising incriminating details about the Democrat. "

Rob Goldstone promised this, not Veselnitskaya. There is nothing to contradict her claim that she wanted to meet about the Magnitsky Act. She was provided marginally damaging information about the Democrats from Glenn Simpson (in reference to their court case), which she passed to Don Jr. after he asked for it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-dossier-firm-also-supplied-info-used-meeting-russians-trump-n819526

As far as the intelligence link, she met with a Russian prosecutor general before she came to the US...because she was handling a $200 million case related to the Magnitsky Act. And she brought a lobbyist who was a former intelligence official. How does any of that link to the election interference?

Quote :

"Yet another completely wrong statement: "Both scenarios also call into question another foundation of Russiagate, the series of Clinton-campaign-funded intelligence reports written by former British spy Christopher Steele." The Clinton campaign did not fund Steele's intelligence reports. They paid a political research firm to gather information. The research firm then contracted Steele to gather information. Clinton did not hire Steele and say "manufacture some shit for me.""

Come on dawg, this one is grasping at straws. It was funded by the Clinton campaign through Fusion. It doesn't say they directly paid Steele.

2/11/2018 2:35:14 PM

The defense of Carter Page will never not baffle me.

2/11/2018 3:57:53 PM

Quote :

"Come on dawg, this one is grasping at straws. It was funded by the Clinton campaign through Fusion. It doesn't say they directly paid Steele."

It's not grasping at straws, the vernacular matters and it matters because it is precisely this phrasing that is being used to cloud public knowledge and opinion. And it's public opinion that is ultimately going to matter if/when it comes down to an impeachment vote because our wonderful politicians don't make decisions in the interest of legality and patriotism, they make decisions in the interest of getting elected. The Clinton foundation did not fund the Steele dossier. It paid for research. That's all it knew it was paying for and all Steele knew was that he was being paid by Fusion to find out what he could about Trump and Russia.

Quote :

"There are lots of people on the left and right who disagree."

It doesn't matter what people's opinions are, what matters are the facts. The GOP memo chose one piece of intelligence out of an unknown amount (due to classification) that was used to justify a FISA warrant. There is absolutely nothing factually compelling about a memo that 1) does not include 100% of the facts and 2) undermines itself throughout the document.

Quote :

"As far as the intelligence link, she met with a Russian prosecutor general before she came to the US...because she was handling a $200 million case related to the Magnitsky Act. And she brought a lobbyist who was a former intelligence official. How does any of that link to the election interference?"

Former intelligence official turned lobbyist = current intelligence official who also lobbies. That's like saying an intelligence officer operating under diplomatic cover as the cultural attache isn't an intelligence officer because they are a cultural attache. https://nypost.com/2017/07/14/no-one-ever-truly-retires-from-russian-intelligence/

As for the Magnitsky Act, the Magnitsky Act is about sanctions against Russia. She was tasked by the Russian government with contacting the Trump campaign and trying to get them to lift sanctions. She was operating as an agent of the Russian government and brought with her at least one "former" intelligence officer.

[Edited on February 11, 2018 at 6:03 PM. Reason : a]

2/11/2018 6:03:46 PM

it's disappointing how badly adultswim has fallen for intentional disinformation and obfuscation regarding steele

2/12/2018 8:46:24 AM

Quote :

"It's not grasping at straws, the vernacular matters and it matters because it is precisely this phrasing that is being used to cloud public knowledge and opinion. And it's public opinion that is ultimately going to matter if/when it comes down to an impeachment vote because our wonderful politicians don't make decisions in the interest of legality and patriotism, they make decisions in the interest of getting elected. The Clinton foundation did not fund the Steele dossier. It paid for research. That's all it knew it was paying for and all Steele knew was that he was being paid by Fusion to find out what he could about Trump and Russia."

That's fine if you disagree with the phrasing. It doesn't mean the author was wrong. You guys tend to discredit entire articles based on one or two things you disagree with.

Quote :

"It doesn't matter what people's opinions are, what matters are the facts. The GOP memo chose one piece of intelligence out of an unknown amount (due to classification) that was used to justify a FISA warrant. There is absolutely nothing factually compelling about a memo that 1) does not include 100% of the facts and 2) undermines itself throughout the document. "

And the Grassley memo?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/09/the-grassley-letter-everyone-is-ignoring-is-way-more-important-than-the-nunes-memo-216956

Quote :

"Former intelligence official turned lobbyist = current intelligence official who also lobbies. That's like saying an intelligence officer operating under diplomatic cover as the cultural attache isn't an intelligence officer because they are a cultural attache."

You're making a lot of assumptions in your analysis and treating them as fact. Would you broaden this assumption to include all of the "retired" US intelligence officials pushing the Russia story and war in Syria? CNN employs James Clapper as an analyst and NBC recently hired John Brennan.

Quote :

"it's disappointing how badly adultswim has fallen for intentional disinformation and obfuscation regarding steele"

we'll see

[Edited on February 12, 2018 at 11:21 AM. Reason : .]

2/12/2018 11:20:31 AM

we'll see? it's not in question after the grasping at straws comment. you not being able to see the distinction and why it matters shows that you are a victim of republicans intentionally conflating steele and fusiongps

2/12/2018 11:26:55 AM

yep, we will see

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/07/politics/republicans-sidney-blumenthal-russia-dossier/index.html

still don't know why you blindly believe anyone but the republicans. none of the others are on your side either.

[Edited on February 12, 2018 at 11:32 AM. Reason : .]

2/12/2018 11:32:12 AM

uh, who the hell am i blindly believing?

2/12/2018 11:35:41 AM

The one thing I can never understand if there was this whole long FBI/State/CIA conspiracy to prevent Trump from being elected why was nothing ever leaked about the Russia contacts pre-election day. It’s utterly baffling.

Wouldn’t the easiest explanation be Trumps campaign had lots of shady contacts and has consistently lied about those shady contacts until they got caught? I’m not even saying that’s proof of wrong-doing but it’s far from some Clinton excuse for losing..

[Edited on February 12, 2018 at 11:42 AM. Reason : And the “thought he’d lose anyway” nonsense is just that... nonsense]

2/12/2018 11:41:27 AM

It was leaked.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/22/trump-dossier-fbi-james-baker-david-corn-mother-jones-316157

And if you believe certain people, there were numerous other leaks leading up to this one. Lots of things in the Steele dossier were reported on in 2016.

I don't think there was a mass conspiracy. I think there are various factions with different interests. Also happy to admit I could be wrong.

[Edited on February 12, 2018 at 12:07 PM. Reason : .]

2/12/2018 12:05:53 PM

Quote :

"And the Grassley memo?"

No one is talking about it because it was destroyed by the Feinstein Memo:
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0/9/09710d10-8885-4c05-9dee-d587fe0b7c0d/4E7F2E9D9626E9A02A76AC28640D0A01.steele-criminal-referral-analysis.pdf

2/12/2018 12:10:09 PM

Quote :

"That's fine if you disagree with the phrasing. It doesn't mean the author was wrong. You guys tend to discredit entire articles based on one or two things you disagree with."

The phrasing states a completely different story than what actually happened. Here is literally an example of what is happening.

A person calls an attorney and says "hey I'm being sued and I need you to defend me."

The attorney then researches everything involved with the case and prepares a defense.

While preparing the defense strategy, the lawyer discovers a ton of information that discredits the plaintiff by displaying evidence that the plaintiff is a pathological liar.

The judge rules in favor of the defendant.

The defendant didn't call the lawyer and say "hey I need you to show the court evidence of the plaintiff lying all of the time so can you dig up dirt on him?" The defendant said "I need you to defend me in court. " The lawyer then did his job and one of HIS decisions was to look into the credibility of the plaintiff.

If Devin Nunes had summarized what just happened in a memo, the memo would say: "The defendant hired a lawyer to make up stories about the plaintiff lying. Clearly this is wrong and therefore the entire defense should be ignored."

If you were to summarize what ACTUALLY happened in a memo, the memo would say: "The defendant hired a lawyer to handle a court case. The lawyer explored multiple avenues for defense and discovered during the process that the plaintiff displays a history of lying. Therefore, the lawyer incorporated this into the case and a judge agreed that the plaintiff is not credible and is therefore most likely lying in this particular case as well."

This has nothing to do with disagreeing with how it's worded and everything to do with how the actual facts of the situation are being represented.

Quote :

"And the Grassley memo?"

Someone above already addressed this.

Quote :

"You're making a lot of assumptions in your analysis and treating them as fact. "

What am I assuming? I'm using known patterns, history and the context of what has been reported thus far to assess what is likely going on. We won't know for sure until an investigation is completed and even then we may not see the actual results depending on whether its simply classified or its release is prevented for political reasons.

In any event, I was responding to factual assertions made by you - that Veselnitskaya has no connection to Russian intelligence (evidence points to opposite) and that the meeting was about the adoption of children (when in fact evidence points to sanctions).

Quote :

"Would you broaden this assumption to include all of the "retired" US intelligence officials pushing the Russia story and war in Syria? CNN employs James Clapper as an analyst and NBC recently hired John Brennan."

To the extent that any retired individual still receives intelligence briefings, sure, they'd still be considered officers. Christopher Steele is no longer an MI6 officer and yet is not allowed to ever step foot in Russia because Russia would still consider him an intelligence operative.

Also, the NY Post article I linked to discusses specifically American retired officers:

Quote :

"We can’t take the measure of Russians by applying American rules. Here, when you leave an intelligence agency, you leave your access and duties completely behind you (unless you go to work for a Beltway Bandit, in which case there’s a record of your employment). When I retired from US Army Military Intelligence, I was “read off” and could not be tapped for classified work any longer, unless I were formally rehired and processed for a renewed security clearance. We also have robust firewalls between intelligence agencies, the rest of government, the private sector, the media, NGOs and so forth. In Russia, there are no firewalls. You can be a businessman, a propagandist, a human-rights lawyer (I love that one) and a spy simultaneously. You can be a billionaire cruising the Greek islands on your mega-yacht, but if Putin’s dogsbody rings your cell with a task, vacation’s over. Russia is, in the end, Putin Incorporated."

Regarding Rachel Brand:

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — The Justice Department's No. 3 attorney had been unhappy with her job for months before the department announced her departure on Friday, according to multiple sources close to Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand. Brand grew frustrated by vacancies at the department and feared she would be asked to oversee the Russia investigation, the sources said."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/justice-department-official-brand-leaves-partly-over-fear-she-might-n847156

[Edited on February 12, 2018 at 12:39 PM. Reason : Rachel Brand update]

2/12/2018 12:24:27 PM

Quote :

"The defendant didn't call the lawyer and say "hey I need you to show the court evidence of the plaintiff lying all of the time so can you dig up dirt on him?" The defendant said "I need you to defend me in court. " The lawyer then did his job and one of HIS decisions was to look into the credibility of the plaintiff."

Fusion GPS was hired specifically for opposition research. We've been over this point before. You said that Fusion GPS hired Steele for "fact gathering", which makes zero sense.

Quote :

""We can’t take the measure of Russians by applying American rules. Here, when you leave an intelligence agency, you leave your access and duties completely behind you (unless you go to work for a Beltway Bandit, in which case there’s a record of your employment). When I retired from US Army Military Intelligence, I was “read off” and could not be tapped for classified work any longer, unless I were formally rehired and processed for a renewed security clearance. We also have robust firewalls between intelligence agencies, the rest of government, the private sector, the media, NGOs and so forth. In Russia, there are no firewalls. You can be a businessman, a propagandist, a human-rights lawyer (I love that one) and a spy simultaneously. You can be a billionaire cruising the Greek islands on your mega-yacht, but if Putin’s dogsbody rings your cell with a task, vacation’s over."

And you're sure this isn't propaganda either?

[Edited on February 12, 2018 at 12:44 PM. Reason : I have to back out of this for now, have too much work today]

2/12/2018 12:42:28 PM

Quote :

"Fusion GPS was hired specifically for opposition research. We've been over this point before. You said that Fusion GPS hired Steele for "fact gathering", which makes zero sense."

And unless you didn't read the testimony in both the House and Senate, you would know that Fusion GPS does not just dig up dirt. They gather all factual information they can. That means if they had discovered that Trump was donating a billion dollars a year to the AIDs foundation they would have reported that information too. They didn't send Steele to Russia to dig up dirt on Trump. They asked him to find out what Trump was doing in Russia. That is literally all they said to him. See what he's doing there. That is a far cry from "give me all the bad shit he's doing there."

Opposition research is designed to gather all information. You need all of it to utilize it effectively. Now, the person who ultimately receives the information can absolutely decide to ignore positive aspects. But they themselves would want that as well so they could prepare counters to it in the event someone else brings it up.

Fact gathering is literally all that makes sense. You're coming at this from a paranoid conspiracy mindset which is utterly frustrating because it means you're refusing to think rationally through things.

Quote :

"And you're sure this isn't propaganda either?"

Ah yes, the propaganda argument again. I forgot with conspiracy minded individuals, the only shit that isn't propaganda is that which they deem to be safe. Think seriously about this stuff rationally and you will back off of statements like this.

I wanted to touch real briefly on the Blumenthal thing too because it plays exactly into what's going on here and what I'm criticizing in your posting.

The GOP is trying to say that Steele's dossier is entirely built from information provided to him by the US State Department, via Blumenthal. They are saying he was given this information from Clinton associates. So basically, the GOP is saying that Clinton created information, had it passed via the US State Department to Christopher Steele, who then created his own memos by copying the information. They're saying the evidence of this is that Steele had provided Blumenthal's information to the FBI along with his own dossier.

Now let's walk through some additional facts and logic. Steele, for starters, TOLD the FBI where the information came from. He literally told them it came from a Clinton friend, through the State Department. No reason to tell the FBI this if he's trying to play games.

Steele turned it in WITH his own research. If he had simply built his memos from the source material from Blumenthal, why on earth would he turn both in to the FBI and then tell them his memos come from Russian sources and the other stuff comes from Shearer (the actual guy who sourced the information and provided it to Blumenthal).

Steele told the FBI that some of Shearer's notes corroborate what he himself had uncovered separately. He also told the FBI that in total, he could not vouch for the veracity of Shearer's work as he was not involved with the production of it.

So walk me through the logic based on the timeline, based on Steele's statements and based on testimony in Congress and also the numerous reports over the past (nearly) two years that backs up this story of a partisan attempt to plant fake intelligence to prevent Trump from winning an election.

Then think of that in the context of what is going on. There is really only one entity that is doing its job here. It's the FBI. It is certainly not the GOP in Congress. And quite frankly it isn't the Democrats either, or at least if they are, they aren't doing it for the right reasons, for the most part.

The Democrats hated the FBI when it was investigating Clinton. The GOP loved the FBI.
The GOP hates the FBI investigating Trump. The Dems love the FBI.

As I've stated on here before in reference to James Comey specifically, if both parties hate a particular person or entity, then most of the time I will find that person or entity to be the only one out of all of them that is trustworthy.

[Edited on February 12, 2018 at 1:07 PM. Reason : a]

2/12/2018 12:50:30 PM

Known fact according to this article: Russian intelligence officials never actually retire and all of them have blood on their hands.

Crazy conspiracy theory: US intelligence agencies plant stories to push narratives

I mean really, did you read that whole article? It's wildly hyperbolic.

Quote :

"The murderous sons of yesteryear’s thugs just wear better suits. When you hear anyone refer to a “former Russian intelligence officer,” you can be sure that “former” spy has blood on his hands. Don’t let it be yours."

lmao

[Edited on February 12, 2018 at 1:06 PM. Reason : .]

2/12/2018 1:05:18 PM

It's an opinion piece at the NY Post. It says that at the top of the article. It is written by Ralph Peters, from Fox News.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Peters

Quote :

"Peters spent ten years in Germany working in military intelligence. He later became a Foreign Area Officer, specializing in the Soviet Union. He attended the Command and General Staff College. His last assignment was to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence. He retired in 1998 as a lieutenant colonel."

Pretty sure he's qualified to opine here, his hyperbolic closing sentences not withstanding.

The ultimate point here is that a "retired" spy attending a meeting with Presidential candidate advisers, a meeting about which people are now proven to have lied, and a meeting during which an attempt was made to exchange intelligence information on an American for the relief of US sanctions, is not retired. He is actively working, even if it's on a contract basis.

There is no other reason for that specific individual to be there.

[Edited on February 12, 2018 at 1:17 PM. Reason : a]

2/12/2018 1:12:27 PM

I'm just saying, you call me a conspiracy nut for not trusting US intelligence, when everything I'm concerned about is related to things they've done in the past.

They have repeatedly conspired against progressive movements. They have repeatedly lied to push us into war. I have no reason to trust these murderous fuckers without concrete proof.

[Edited on February 12, 2018 at 1:18 PM. Reason : .]

2/12/2018 1:17:39 PM

Quote :

"I'm just saying, you call me a conspiracy nut for not trusting US intelligence, when everything I'm concerned about is related to things they've done in the past. They have repeatedly conspired against progressive movements. They have repeatedly lied to push us into war. I have no reason to trust these murderous fuckers without concrete proof."

They did not lie to push us into The Iraq War, which I'm presuming is the basis for this statement. That was President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and several others. The intelligence community continuously adamantly told them there was no connection to Iraq.

Now, if you go back further into history they certainly have. I recall a lot of that going on in South America, but even a lot of that was directed by Presidents as opposed to your intelligence professionals.

I made the conspiracy nut remark for taking irrational memos and statements and talking head pieces from Fox News and using that to try and make factual arguments. If you go by the totality of reporting, the consensus thus far driven from that as well as the actual behavior of those involved, then concluding that the intelligence community is waging a deep state war to prevent Trump from being President is utterly ridiculous, follows from no rational chain of logic and is simply a wish to simply believe what you want as opposed to looking at reality.

2/12/2018 2:09:33 PM

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/4373nw/buzzfeed-pee-tape-donald-trump

Quote :

"BuzzFeed News will fight a lawsuit arising from publication of the infamous “pee tape” dossier by proving some of the allegations against Donald Trump are true, Foreign Policy reported Tuesday. "

To be clear here, it just means this is their intent and strategy, not that they have actually proved anything yet.

[Edited on February 13, 2018 at 5:51 PM. Reason : a]

2/13/2018 5:37:25 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/02/13/a-russian-dissident-pulls-off-a-virtuoso-trolling-of-the-putin-regime/?utm_term=.8d057930c60e

This is the same Oleg Deripaska that Manafort offered to brief about the campaign.

2/14/2018 6:43:58 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/rick-gates-plea-deal-mueller-russia-investigation/index.html

Quote :

"Washington (CNN)Former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates is finalizing a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's office, indicating he's poised to cooperate in the investigation, according to sources familiar with the case. Gates has already spoken to Mueller's team about his case and has been in plea negotiations for about a month. He's had what criminal lawyers call a "Queen for a Day" interview, in which a defendant answers any questions from the prosecutors' team, including about his own case and other potential criminal activity he witnessed."

2/15/2018 6:42:50 PM

https://twitter.com/tamarakeithnpr/status/964557599801794560

I still won’t believe it until Putin says he did it

2/16/2018 12:52:22 PM

^putin's chef

2/16/2018 1:20:11 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/politics/mueller-russia-indictments-election-interference/index.html

2/16/2018 1:32:22 PM

The flood gates are opening with these 13 new indictments.

2/16/2018 1:33:39 PM

the indictment says there are other people not named in the indictment who intentionally conspired with the indicted

2/16/2018 1:37:14 PM

Quote :

""Specialists were instructed to...'use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump - we support them)'." Paragraph 43b"

explains the earl demographic

2/16/2018 1:39:37 PM

Am I missing something? We've known about the Internet Research Agency for years. Other countries, including the US, do the same thing. Pretty funny that we're indicting them for it.

How does this prove Trump colluded?

2/16/2018 2:05:05 PM

Mentions Stein too. If this website wasn’t a pointless festering carcass I’d almost think he was one of them.

^ this cant be serious. It doesn’t yet. No one said it did. But it certainly should provide color to those who say the entire influence was a Democrat excuse like the president does.

I haven’t seen anyone say it doesn’t absolve Clinton from being a terrible candidate.

[Edited on February 16, 2018 at 2:07 PM. Reason : X]

2/16/2018 2:05:26 PM

adultswim is definitely in the earl demographic

2/16/2018 2:08:27 PM

I’m thoroughly impressed with the way Mueller is handling this. No one saw this coming and there was not a hint of a leak. Should give both sides confidence this is being done correctly..

2/16/2018 2:13:31 PM

Quote :

"It doesn’t yet. No one said it did."

Ok then, I misinterpreted.

It's still funny to me because we do the same thing. Along with China, the UK, etc.

The neolibs will definitely use this against Sanders, as well as anyone who runs third party.

[Edited on February 16, 2018 at 2:38 PM. Reason : .]

2/16/2018 2:34:11 PM

I doubt they will. A small minority on twitter might but I don’t recall Sanders leading “lock her up” chants, having a son perfectly willing to meet with Russians for dirt and actively asking people to hack Clinton emails.

Sanders, IF he got help, was obviously unknowing. There is not one iota of proof anywhere that suggests otherwise.

2/16/2018 2:42:04 PM

Oh I didn't mean that way. I mean in this kind of way:

"The Russians want you to vote for Sanders"

"Voting third party is Russian propaganda"

"Russians helped Sanders and he still lost to Clinton. She can win this time!"

"If you voted for Sanders, but not Clinton, you're a victim of propaganda"

etc. A few of these are already making the rounds on Reddit/Twitter. Not saying this was the point of the indictments, don't get me wrong. It's just important to highlight how neoliberals are using this to push back the left.

[Edited on February 16, 2018 at 2:57 PM. Reason : .]

2/16/2018 2:50:39 PM