Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, November 08, 2017

The special prosecutor's probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election has delivered a guilty plea -- and a trove of new information about the Trump campaign's contacts with Moscow. The new details allow us to piece together the Russiagate puzzle as never before. ... Below, Rolling Stone has taken previously public information and woven it together with new details revealed in the "statement of the offense" from the Papadopoulos case, creating a timeline of key dates, figures and events that tie the Trump campaign to Russia.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Nov. 3, 2016

Russian émigré Felix Sater, a longtime Trump associate with a criminal past, writes to Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, bragging he has proven contacts in Moscow who could help get Trump elected. An excerpt of an email by Sater published in The New York Times reads, "Michael ... I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected. ... I know how to play it and we will get this done. Buddy our boy can become President of the USA and I can engineer it. I will get all of Putins [sic] team to buy in on this."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

November 6

"A Russian lawyer who met with President Donald Trump's oldest son last year says he indicated that a law targeting Russia could be re-examined if his father won the election and asked her for written evidence that illegal proceeds went to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

The lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, said in a two-and-a-half-hour interview in Moscow that she would tell these and other things to the Senate Judiciary Committee on condition that her answers be made public, something it hasn't agreed to."

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-06 05:32 PM | Reply

* The Post reports this intriguing nugget:

Mueller's interest in Russian contacts may extend to Trump's business, as well, with the special counsel's office recently asking for records related to a failed 2015 proposal for a Moscow Trump Tower, according to a person familiar with the request.

This will deeply anger Trump, who has said he would view any effort by Mueller to examine his finances as a "violation."

www.washingtonpost.com

Could be the straw that breaks the orange orangutan's back... and pushes him to fire Mueller.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-06 05:43 PM | Reply

The article is missing the Trump Organization - Moscow Bank communication server outed in August 2016. That revelation was the first concrete evidence of communication between team trump and the foreign nation. That was when my suspicions were confirmed and the evidence has only gotten stronger since.

#3 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-06 06:04 PM | Reply

Natasha Bertrand‏ @NatashaBertrand

Just released: the 243-page transcript of Carter Page's testimony to the House Intel Committee last week

intelligence.house.gov

Holy moly. 243 pages? Can't wait for someone to give us highlights and summary.

#4 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-06 08:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- Natasha Bertrand‏ @NatashaBertrand

She sounds Russian. probably short for Bertrandov

#5 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-06 08:26 PM | Reply

Bertrand is a political correspondent @BusinessInsider.

#6 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-06 08:30 PM | Reply

Manu Raju‏ @mkraju

Page suggested to campaign officials Trump go to Moscow; he told Hope Hicks, Corey Lewandowski and JD Gordon about his own Moscow trip

(Senior Congressional Correspondent, @CNN)

#7 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-06 08:47 PM | Reply

Now you see it; now you don't:

Trump campaign associate banned from Wikipedia indefinitely after trying to scrub Russia ties from bio

Sean Dwyer, a staffer of former Donald Trump campaign aide Michael Caputo, was banned from Wikipedia indefinitely after desperately trying to scrub any mention of Russia from his biography page. The move was an apparent attempt by Caputo to avoid being linked to the investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 election.

www.rawstory.com

#8 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-07 11:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2


The trend in the developments of this investigation does not appear to be a good one.

#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-08 08:15 AM | Reply

Inside secret court hearing in Mueller's Trump-Russia probe

Audio reveals details of George Papadopoulos' July arraignment in closed Virginia courtroom.

www.politico.com

Here are the charges Papadopolous faced before he plead guilty and cooperated:

Buchanan told Papadopolous to stand and formally advised him he'd been charged in a criminal complaint with obstruction of justice and making false official statements. She then called on Van Grack to lay out the maximum penalties: five years and a $250,000 fine for the false statement charge and 20 years in prison and $250,000 fine for the obstruction charge.

#10 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-08 09:16 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#4 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Almost done....

#11 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-08 12:28 PM | Reply

There is no doubt there are long running ties between Trump Inc and Russia. Russia's participation in Trump's campaign is unseemly. Whether it violates the law will depend on more proof. Evidence of Russian hacking of the DNC has never been made public. The DNC (Podesta) has not cooperated fully in resolving this question by surrendering their servers to the FBI/NSA.

Without questioning any of the timeline (Rolling Stone is often a better source than the Washington Post or NYT) will someone please tell me what dirt or information the Russians provided that was not already known to, used by, or made up by Republicans?

The last President to make peace with Russia was assassinated. JFK made peace with Khrushev secretly, through private letter exchanges. Together, they avoided a full scale war in Berlin and Cuba. ALL of JFK's military advisors were dead set against peace and actively promoted a first strike against Russia before they achieved nuclear parity with the United States.

Most of the details in those letters were released by Khrushev's son, after the Berlin wall came down. Many documents emerged during the investigation which pointed either to a Russia-Cuba connection or an effort by the CIA to falsely blame Russia-Cuba. President Johnson and the Warren Commission rejected the Russia-Cuba connection but never asked if not Russia-Cuba, then who did all this? There are many dead witnesses whose testimony implies the CIA was directly involved or all witnesses were lying. For example the Warren Commission gave the only copy of a typewritten letter allegedly authored by Lee Oswald, to CIA operative Ruth Paine, who took Lee and Maria in when they moved to Dallas.

#12 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-08 12:29 PM | Reply

Grand Old Trump Party (GOTP) Russia Scandal Timeline

January 2017: largest inaugural crowd EVER!

February 2017: Dems are just sore losers!

March 2017: Witch Hunt!

April 2017: Hoax!

May 2017: No Collusion by anyone in campaign!

June 2017: No collusion by Trump at least!

July 2017: Nothingburgers

August 2017: Nothingburgers

September 2017: NOTHINGBURGERS!

October 2017: I don't know any of those people. Just coffee boys!

November 2017: Oh ----!

#13 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-08 01:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 5 | Newsworthy 1

#13

You win the internet today.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-08 01:12 PM | Reply

Although I'd change July 2017 to:

No collusion by President Trump at least!

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-08 01:14 PM | Reply

You win the internet today.

#14 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

🤪

#16 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-08 01:23 PM | Reply

November 3rd
Russian émigré Felix Sater, a longtime Trump associate with a criminal past, writes to Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, bragging he has proven contacts in Moscow who could help get Trump elected. An excerpt of an email by Sater published in The New York Times reads, "Michael ... I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected. ... I know how to play it and we will get this done. Buddy our boy can become President of the USA and I can engineer it. I will get all of Putins [sic] team to buy in on this."

What a bunch of NOTHINGBURGER!

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-08 01:38 PM | Reply

Without questioning any of the timeline (Rolling Stone is often a better source than the Washington Post or NYT) will someone please tell me what dirt or information the Russians provided that was not already known to, used by, or made up by Republicans?

#12 | Posted by bayviking

It's not just WHAT they released. It's WHEN they released it. The day trumps access hollywood --------- video was released, wikileaks dumped hillary's emails hours later. Clearly coordinated to change the story, save trump, and hurt hillary.

Then there's the fact that during the election, russia was sending fake facebook ads to liberals, telling them they could vote in these fake ways online, which would make them THINK they voted, when they actually didn't.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-08 01:41 PM | Reply

Without questioning any of the timeline (Rolling Stone is often a better source than the Washington Post or NYT) will someone please tell me what dirt or information the Russians provided that was not already known to, used by, or made up by Republicans?
#12 | Posted by bayviking

Opportunistically timed release of stolen documents on Wikileaks. Armies of fake news and advertisement manufacturers to sway public opinion.

#19 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-08 01:58 PM | Reply

"Almost done....
#11 | Posted by gavaster"

Impressive.

#20 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-08 02:00 PM | Reply

#20 - GAL

Finished a few mins ago but got distracted.

Long story short...articles like this...

www.cnn.com

are extremely misleading. If Carter Page met with Russian officials then Randy Houser and I are friends.

#21 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-08 03:04 PM | Reply

To clarify, saying Carter Page held meetings with Russian officials and imply that he was assisting Russia with collusion is the equivalent of saying since I was backstage with Randy Houser at a concert in Nashville and have his latest unreleased album. Highly speculative, but possible. lol

#22 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-08 03:21 PM | Reply

If Carter Page met with Russian officials then Randy Houser and I are friends.

#21 | Posted by gavaster

And gullible as you apparently are I bet you believe there is nothing to hide in Trumps tax returns, too. Because he said so.

They want us to believe they flew all the way to Moscow during a heated campaign for the Presidency just to wave at people.

You can believe that nonsense if you like. (This is America and you get to believe anything you want.)

This s the most untrustworthy gang of thieves to ever step foot in the White House. After listening to lie after lie after lie I don't believe a damn thing they say anymore.

#23 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-08 03:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

To clarify, saying Carter Page held meetings with Russian officials and imply that he was assisting Russia with collusion is the equivalent of saying since I was backstage with Randy Houser at a concert in Nashville and have his latest unreleased album. Highly speculative, but possible. lol

#22 | Posted by gavaster

In isolation perhaps. But if you, your family, your friends, and your employees were all backstage with randy houser at different times, and then all denied it, got caught lying about it, and kept revising your stories, then anyone with a brain would say there's something suspicious between you and randy houser.

#24 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-08 03:57 PM | Reply

#24 - Speaks

I didn't say there was no collusion. I am saying Carter Page isnt the connection.

#25 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-08 04:05 PM | Reply

#23 - Donner

Believe the testimony of Carter Page or not, the media, who we trust to investigate this issue, misleading Americans by titling their stories in such a way as to give the illusion of secret Russian meetings is the same disinformation bull crap the Russians pulled on Twitter. Pot meet Kettle. And if the media, who are supposed to be held to a higher journalistic standard, has no problem using misleading headlines and taking quotes out of context, well I suspect there are more than a few lies being told by them as well. Only they are American companies and so misleading the American public isn't a crime. The Russians are amateurs when compared to American media.

#26 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-08 04:12 PM | Reply

RE#26

Did Carter Page meet with Russian official during 2016 trip to Moscow?

Answer: Yes

Conclusion: Headline is accurate.

#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-08 04:27 PM | Reply

#27 - Donner

Go read the interview. You're ignorance is showing. You'd prefer to be spoon fed a story you already believe without challenging the claims made simply because it matches what you already have determined is true. In other words, you are a Trumper wearing a Democrat label. That your naivety is keeping you from seeing the headline is intended to make one believe Page went to Moscow to meet Russian officials is not shocking. There's no mention Carter Page has spoken at this university before, the Russian official he met was also an alum of the school and a speaker at this event, or that the Trump campaign explicitly told Carter Page he was not to go as a representative of the Trump campaign. Interestingly anything that would allude to this trip not being about colluding either Russia is omitted and only statements intended to make one believe he flew to Moscow to have a secret meeting with Putin are included. That you're okay with this is not surprising.

#28 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-08 04:49 PM | Reply

Your not you're.

#29 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-08 04:50 PM | Reply

I didn't say there was no collusion. I am saying Carter Page isnt the connection.

#25 | Posted by gavaster
He's definitely A connection. One of the MANY "coincidental" connections between trump and the russians.

www.theatlantic.com
The former Trump aide's appearance before the House Intelligence Committee suggests a man deeply connected in Russia -- and in way over his head.
Page was also fuzzy about an encounter with a man who works for the Russian oil giant Rosneft, whom he called an old friend, saying he could not recall who had contacted the other or whether they had discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia.

#30 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-08 05:28 PM | Reply

#30 - Speak

He was the VP of Merrill Lynch's Moscow office. Of course he has connections in Russia.

I talked to my friend from across the country two weeks ago for the first time in months. I can't tell you if I called him or he called me...and that was two weeks ago. Try remembering who you talked to a year and a half ago and say with 100% certainty who called who. That point is such a stupid one to get hung up on. And when you're testifying under oath you better be damn sure who called who and if you're not then you say you don't know. And with Pappy getting pinged for lying to the FBI can you blame the guy?

#31 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-08 06:23 PM | Reply

And with Pappy getting pinged for lying to the FBI can you blame the guy?

#31 | Posted by gavaster

I understand giving someone the benefit of the doubt. But with the amount of lies team trump has already been caught in regarding russia, only a fool would still be giving any of them the benefit of the doubt at this point.

For sensible people, that ended with Trump Jr's emails.

#32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-08 06:26 PM | Reply

#30 - Speak

I don't necessarily agree the guy is in over his head. He's been chest deep in foreign politics for 25 years and a former Navy intel officer. He has a doctorate in foreign relations and speaks at some pretty heady Universities. I'd say he bit of more than he can chew, but I think he knows he's up chit sreek without a paddle with a shotgun blasted hole in the boat.

His interview reads like a guy who knows one misstep in his speech could have him charged with lying under oath. Seems to be the appropriate approach given recent events.

#33 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-08 06:33 PM | Reply

#32 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

There's a distinct difference between lying to the media and lying to Congress. To take your stance I would have to state Carter Page is, at minimum, guilty of lying to Congress under oath and should be arrested and thrown in jail. I can't make that leap based on the information available. Evidently neither can Mueller or I think he'd of already picked up Carter Page.

I don't believe anything Trump says or anyone else says until they are forced to testify under oath. Carter Page did. If this was a CNN interview the conversation would be different.

#34 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-08 06:44 PM | Reply

There's a distinct difference between lying to the media and lying to Congress.

So you are Ok with Carter Page lying and/or misleading the media but agree it is a crime for him to lie to Congress.

Then you get angry because you think that the media (CNN in this case) is lying or misleading you with their headline.

I do not agree that CNN has lied to you in their headline (at least in this case). Carter Page met with a Russian Official (if only for 5 seconds) while on a trip Moscow in 2016.

And even if they did lie that should be perfectly ok by you as it is not a crime.

Do you get just as upset when Fox News lies and or misleads you?

I am highly am doubtful.

#35 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-08 07:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"There's a distinct difference between lying to the media and lying to Congress."

Tell it to the Kuwait Ambassador's daughter. ;)

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-08 07:27 PM | Reply

#35 - Donner

You lied three times in one paragraph. I guess we should never believe anything you ever say again.

~"So you are Ok with Carter Page lying and/or misleading the media but agree it is a crime for him to lie to Congress."
~I didn't say that, you made that up. Lie 1.

~"Then you get angry because you think that the media (CNN in this case) is lying or misleading you with their headline.
I do not agree that CNN has lied to you in their headline (at least in this case). Carter Page met with a Russian Official (if only for 5 seconds) while on a trip Moscow in 2016."
~Again, I did say CNN lied in their headline. I said it was misleading and lacks context and conveniently leaves out facts. Go read the interview. There's only one side of the interview presented. Lie 2

~"And even if they did lie that should be perfectly ok by you as it is not a crime.
Do you get just as upset when Fox News lies and or misleads you?
I am highly am doubtful."
~Triple whammy, third time was the charm. This one's kinda funny considering I'm the one who actually read the entire interview and you're the one regurgitating bits and pieces of news articles. I have never been a Fox news fan. I could see through FOX News bs before my voice stopped squeaking. You are the Democrat version of a Trumper. No critical thinking required when you agree with the message. Lie 3

Find in the CNN article for me where they quote Carter Page saying he didn't meet or discuss colluding with Russia.

I said there is a difference in lying to the media and lying to Congress. Go read about testifying under oath and maybe you'll realize the significance.

#37 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-08 07:28 PM | Reply

#36 - Snoofy

Thanks for proving my point. She evidently had diplomatic immunity so lying to Congress wasn't a big deal. If an American citizen had done the same they'd be in jail.

#38 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-08 07:38 PM | Reply

Nope, wrong on both counts.
Her testimony before Congress was not sworn.
You know, just like W. and Cheney's.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-08 07:41 PM | Reply

"So you (appear to be) are Ok with Carter Page lying and/or misleading the media but agree it is a crime for him to lie to Congress."

Again, I did say CNN lied in their headline. I said it was misleading and lacks context and conveniently leaves out facts. i.e. lying

"Do you get just as upset when Fox News lies and or misleads you?"

How is that a lie? It is a damn question!

And I notice you didn't even answer the damn question.

And I am a anti-Trumper Trumper?

Sorry Comrade.

You may disagree with my "liberal" opinions but I deal in facts and I verify my sources.

The headline is not a lie...err EXCUSE ME!!! ... it is not "misleading and lacks context and conveniently leaves out facts"

It is a fricking headline. Headlines don't contain many facts or context. Headlines are designed to grab your attention and to try and get you to read the story (where hopefully you will find the facts and context).

#40 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-08 07:50 PM | Reply

#39 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Shucks, you got me. I shouldn't have commented on Nayirah's testimony with only my cursory googling after you posted. (before my time) I evidently read the wrong highlights of the case in my haste to respond and was misinformed.

But I also clarified my comment about Carter Page by saying he was under oath so I don't understand the point of your trolling. I guess trolls will be trolls! Good times.

#41 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-08 07:57 PM | Reply

"Carter Page by saying he was under oath "

Yes, that would change things.
Though I expect, for a Trump crony, not so much.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-08 07:58 PM | Reply

"don't understand the point "

Well it seemed like you didn't know about some famous, un-sworn testimony to Congress; both of which are related to Wars in Iraq, as it turns out.

I suspect you'd rather not be in the dark about those kinds of things, especially as they relate to national security, is all.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-08 08:01 PM | Reply

#40 - Donner

~"i.e. lying"
~Misleading and lying are actually not equal. They may fall under the same umbrella as dishonesty, but it's not a lie.

~"Do you get just as upset when Fox News lies and or misleads you?"
How is that a lie? It is a damn question!"
~Instead of cherry picking why don't you quote my whole comment? Here's the lie..."And even if they did lie that should be perfectly ok by you as it is not a crime." That's the lie. I didn't say it's okay to lie or that lying is not a crime. Actually I said the opposite. I said it can be a crime to lie.

~And I notice you didn't even answer the damn question.
~Did you read a effin word I wrote? "I have never been a Fox news fan. I could see through FOX News bs before my voice stopped squeaking."

~And I am a anti-Trumper Trumper?
~Batting 0% I see. I said "You are the Democrat version of a Trumper." IE an ignorant, uneducated, partisan, shill.

~Sorry Comrade.
You may disagree with my "liberal" opinions but I deal in facts and I verify my sources.
~Buahaha!! Three lies in one paragraph, more lies and misrepresentation in your follow up. You can't even comprehend what you read so all the facts and sources in the world wouldn't help you.

~"The headline is not a lie...err EXCUSE ME!!! ... it is not "misleading and lacks context and conveniently leaves out facts"
It is a fricking headline. Headlines don't contain many facts or context. Headlines are designed to grab your attention and to try and get you to read the story (where hopefully you will find the facts and context)."
~Again, I said it was misleading. It is. And no where in the article and in multiple other articles are there any mentions of the repeated denials of collusion by Carter, the campaign telling him they wouldn't condone his trip as a part of the campaign and many other facts and statements that indicate he was not in fact acting on behalf of the campaign. Every paragraph framed the interview as an admittance of secret meetings with Russian officials and zero mentions of Carter's denials of those accusations. To say the article is misleading is being kind. If I was this misleading at my job I'd be fired.

#44 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-08 08:15 PM | Reply

#42 - Snoofy

"That would change things."

umm....yeah. That's why I said it to begin with.

#43 - Snoofy

"famous, un-sworn testimony"

You lost me at unsworn and Iraq..thanks? I guess?! If there's ever a case where a foreign national is not under oath and testifying to Congress I'll remember that story and I'll say "wait a minute, I've seen this before. We should check her story."

#45 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-08 08:47 PM | Reply

#45 | POSTED BY GAVASTER

Not necessarily, considering your knowledge seems to be based off of "cursory googling".

Look at get it, it was "before your time". How could you have full understanding.

But, given that, why must you come across so ---- sure of yourself on a subject that you merely "cursory googled"? And how often is that the case.

I've definitely gain insight to your position(s).

#46 | Posted by memyselfini at 2017-11-09 01:11 AM | Reply

Put aside your well founded disgust of Trump for a minute to review what we actually know:

Trump has a long running financial relationship with Russia and was interested in détente with Russia.

The Steel Dossier was originally funded by the Clinton campaign after 20,000 of her damaging emails were released.

Russia contributed zero dirt on Hillary.

There is no proof of Russian hacking of the DNC, since Podesta has refused to let the FBI or NSA examine DNC servers.

The story won't die because the intelligence community has adopted and embellished it in order to prevent détente with Russia.

Real détente between JFK and Khrushchev and JFK's order #201 which would pull US troops out of Vietnam are the most likely reasons JFK was assassinated by the CIA. There was no détente and the Vietnam war raged on for years. That is how the CIA plays its evil games.

Trump eventually got the message and decided to back off détente and increase military spending.

#47 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-09 07:38 AM | Reply

Re 44 look at all this wordy words.

Look at you twisting yourself into a pretzel all to just try and proof that a CNN headline was misleading when it was actually 100% accurate.

Makes one wonder why you are so invested in being right.

Carter Page was indeed probably just a bit player and a wanna be spy but he was up to his neck in this thing in an attempt to make contacts with Russia on behalf of Trump.

#48 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-09 10:11 AM | Reply

#46 | POSTED BY MEMYSELFIN

"why must you come across so ---- sure of yourself"

I was right..is that a good enough reason?

#49 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-09 10:55 AM | Reply

#48 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

"Re 44 look at all this wordy words."

I know...reading is HARD!! Especially when your comprehension is low. Practice, practice, practice! You'll get better in time.

#50 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-09 10:59 AM | Reply

I was right

#49 | POSTED BY GAVASTER

Shucks, you got me.

41 | POSTED BY GAVASTER

Actually no you were admittedly wrong.

#51 | Posted by memyselfini at 2017-11-09 12:34 PM | Reply

#51 memyselfin

Did she have diplomatic immunity?
If an American citizen lied to congress, not under oath, could they be thrown in jail?

#52 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-09 03:20 PM | Reply

"If an American citizen lied to congress, not under oath, could they be thrown in jail?'

Well, until yesterday a person was being prosecuted by the AG for laughing at the AG.

So there's probably a way to throw them in jail. Even though lying while not under oath, and presumably laughing, are protected by the First Amendment.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-09 03:23 PM | Reply

#53 - SNOOFY

www.google.com

#54 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-09 03:32 PM | Reply

"There is no proof of Russian hacking of the DNC, since Podesta has refused to let the FBI or NSA examine DNC servers. "

Not true. First of all, Podesta didn't have control over the server. Second:

"The DNC coordinated with the FBI and federal intelligence agencies and provided everything they requested, including copies of DNC servers," Watson said. She added that the copy contains the same information as the physical server.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/11/donald-trump/did-john-podesta-deny- cia-and-fbi-access-dnc-serve/

Third, other companies besides Crowdstrike verified the data (scroll down a bit to see the list)

"And corroborated by an insane number of cybersecurity firms. Everyone piled on."

twitter.com

#55 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-09 04:03 PM | Reply

#55 Link that didn't work:

www.politifact.com

#56 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-09 04:03 PM | Reply

Gal makes a point, from the wrong question:
"I had nothing to do with the Democratic National Committee -- I chaired Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign," Podesta wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Post. "So there was no DNC server for me to refuse to give, and I was never asked for one."

One important known Hillary/DNC hacker is Guccifer (Marcel Lazăr Lehel), a Romanian imprisoned in the USA after extradition, but not a Russian.

Have the servers in question been examined by a credible authority?

www.counterpunch.org

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations," the Homeland Security Department and Office of the Director of National Intelligence wrote in a joint statement released on Oct. 7, 2016.

The problem here is our intelligence community are pathological liars. They lie to Congress and the American public constantly and nobody can do anything about it. Lying is their least sin. They run drugs and weapons in Columbia, Vietnam, Central America, Afghanistan. They have conducted experiments on unwilling human subjects with LSD, syphilis and plutonium. They most likely killed JFK, tried repeatedly to kill Castro and definitely killed Allende, Mosaddegh and more others than we'll ever know. It is foolish to take their word for anything.

#57 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-09 07:02 PM | Reply

#33 Kissinger has a doctorate and Nobel Peace prize, he and others lied about 'peace with honor'. Many 'intelligence officials' lied their asses off about Viet-cong troop strength and NV loses. Doctorates and intelligence officers may or may not be on the up and up. Figures lie and liars figure.
I have the opinion that Dr Paige is missing on a few cylinders. There's lying by inclusion and lying by exclusion. Either one is lying. Lying before Congress is a serious matter.
These people lie simply to lie; they don't give a good ----, they're the smartest in the room you know.

#58 | Posted by b_al at 2017-11-09 09:39 PM | Reply

The problem here is our intelligence community are pathological liars. They lie to Congress and the American public constantly and nobody can do anything about it.

But you, somehow, know when they are lying and what they are lying about. Where does your information come from?

#59 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-11-10 11:48 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort