From Pie Guevara
A few bits culled from the Internet.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
If everyone is running around with the assumption that it’s illegitimate to work with a foreign government in a campaign, then it’s perfectly fair to ask what was the relationship between the Clinton campaign and the Ukrainians — Benjamin Wittes
Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and involved Ukranian military and foreign intelligence services. There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine.
Read this from 2017 – Media, Dems Ignore Hillary Ukraine Collusion
Yeah, I know, this is old news but what about the sale of US uranium deposits to a Russian company as orchestrated by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? And the Russian cash that flowed into the Clinton Foundation at the same time. Certainly no “collusion” there, right?
That hapless idiot Cory “Spartacus” Booker lying about his age when he 
sexually assaulted a woman under the influence of alcohol (and likely other drugs) pales in comparison to the machinations of Hillary. In any case I am sure that any candidate from the Democrat party is up to selling out to Russians — or any foreign power — if the price is right.
Here are a couple of updates to the Ukraine collusion with Hillary and Biden’s connection.
How the Obama White House engaged Ukraine to give Russia collusion narrative an early boost:
“A Ukrainian court in December concluded NABU’s release of the ledger was an illegal attempt to influence the U.S. election. And a member of Ukraine’s parliament has released a recording of a NABU official saying the agency released the ledger to help Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
The other case raised at the January 2016 meeting, Telizhenko said, involved Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company under investigation in Ukraine for improper foreign transfers of money. At the time, Burisma allegedly was paying then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter as both a board member and a consultant. More than $3 million flowed from Ukraine to an American firm tied to Hunter Biden in 2014-15, bank records show.
According to Telizhenko, U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over. The Ukrainians did not agree. But then Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire Ukraine’s chief prosecutor in March 2016, as I previously reported. The Burisma case was transferred to NABU, then shut down.”
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/440730-how-the-obama-white-house-engaged-ukraine-to-give-russia-collusion
And this update on new post election Strozk/Page emails discovered.
Strzok-Page texts suggested using post-election briefing to gather information on Trump team:
“Text messages between former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page indicate they discussed using briefings to the Trump team after the 2016 election to identify people they could “develop for potential relationships,” track lines of questioning and “assess” changes in “demeanor” – language one GOP lawmaker called “more evidence” of irregular conduct in the original Russia probe.
“Any improper FBI surveillance activities that were conducted before or after the 2016 election must be brought to light and properly addressed,” the senators wrote.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/strzok-page-texts-suggested-using-post-election-briefing-information-trump-team
Peggy, always a fount of relevant information. Thank you. This blog would suffer without your generous contributions.
Thanks Pie, I try to post to inform, not offend.
I’ve been following John Solomon and Sara Carter, who have been doing a yosemen job of reporting on Russian collusion, Uranium One deal and other related issues. They’re both true investigative reporters and present their findings based on real documented and verified facts. Also, Tom Fitton at Judicial Watch has been revealing information with his lawsuits that Congress hasn’t been able to obtain.
Here’s some more articles for those interested.
Solomon:
https://muckrack.com/john-solomon/articles
Carter:
https://muckrack.com/john-solomon/articles
Fitton:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/
Clinton Emails Found in Obama WH:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/clinton-emails-found-in-obama-wh/
The Uranium One conspiracy theory is just as nonsensical as the FISA warrant conspiracy theory.
Nine different agencies had to approve that deal, and none of them had to answer directly to Hillary Clinton when approving it. There’s no evidence that Clinton herself even participated in the vote. The donor that gave her a big donation afterward was a routine donor who no longer even had a stake in the Russian company in question.
So the theory is that nine different agencies who did not answer to Hillary Clinton sold uranium processing capacity to a Russian company so that Clinton could get a big donation from a guy that was already giving her big donations, and did not benefit from the deal at all.
That makes no sense.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/
I’ve asked people who’ve spread the Uranium One conspiracy theory to explain it in a way that accounts for these holes many, many times. No one has ever taken me up on that offer.
Pie replying here: So, nine different agencies under Obama administration control and influence… and the money flowing from Russian operatives did not influence Clinton’s decision. Big hole there. One you refuse to accept. Small matter.
Pie replying here: So, nine different agencies under Obama administration control and influence… and the money flowing from Russian operatives did not influence Clinton’s decision. Big hole there. One you refuse to accept. Small matter.
Thank you for the civil reply, Pie.
But as I already explained, it wasn’t Clinton’s decision. There is no evidence that she even took part in the decision. And if she did, why should her reasoning be assumed to be any different from the reasoning of the nine other agencies that voted for the deal? If they all had good, non-corrupt reasons for approving the deal, why couldn’t Clinton?
There also were no “Russian operatives.” It was one Russian businessman, who no longer had any stake in the company in question.
So I’m not seeing the hole in my argument. Can you please explain it to me?
“Text messages between former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page indicate they discussed using briefings to the Trump team after the 2016 election to identify people they could “develop for potential relationships,” track lines of questioning and “assess” changes in “demeanor” – language one GOP lawmaker called “more evidence” of irregular conduct in the original Russia probe.
Absolutely none of this indicates “irregular conduct” on the part of investigators. This is how investigations work.
Pie here: Yep, nothing to see here folks. Chris has the last word. 😀
You had four options here:
a) Rebut the statement of fact I made by showing how it is false.
b) Acknowledge the statement of fact I made was true.
c) Ask me for evidence that my statement of fact was true.
d) Resort to mockery because you’re not able to do a-c.
You’ve been going with Option D a lot lately. People are going to start to notice.
Pie here: Still begging for my attention, eh?
I don’t have to beg for it.
As you know Pie, the activities going on with certain people in the Justice Department and FBI did NOT follow normal procedures and in fact were extremely irregular if not, criminal. Activities such as these are why sealed indictments have been issued.
Good article. So glad you’re on board!
That article strikes me as very desperate. What was the procedural or legal violation in Nellie Ohr’s husband reading the emails she sent him? Certainly there was none on her end by sending them. None of the information she sent him was illegally obtained, and there is no evidence he even used it in the investigation.
Contrast that with the actions of the Trump campaign, who willingly and enthusiastically benefitted from illegally obtained information as part of an attack on our democracy that they repeatedly denied was happening. If that in itself isn’t prosecutable, it’s highly unlikely the actions the article describes on the part of the investigators are prosecutable.
The fact is that there was a legitimate investigation, and it’s over. The article even describes multiple illegal actions by members of the Trump campaign that were caught by these investigators. And yet we’re still supposed to believe the investigation was illegitimate and should never have happened? Even Barr, who have a shameful performance yesterday, didn’t go that far—he said that the investigation was properly conducted. Is he in on it too?
You should be happy—the Mueller report couldn’t find direct proof of collusion, and Mueller chose not to prosecute Trump for obstruction. But the freakout continues for two reasons: 1) The report clearly articulates several instances that could rise to the level of obstruction, and 2) The report paints a picture of a president who will lie repeatedly about the existence of an attack on our country’s institutions for his own personal gain. You know this is true. You know how I know you know this is true? Because I’ve been saying it for weeks, and not one person here has even attempted to rebut it.
The president is a national security threat. This cannot be rebutted or denied any longer, so deflection is the only tactic Team Trump has left. It isn’t going to work with the majority of Americans, who opposed Trump in 2016 and still oppose him today. And it won’t work in 2020, when he is even less popular than he was then. Let’s just hope that ends up mattering despite Trump’s popularity in the few sparsely populated areas that dominate the electoral college, the voter suppression attempts, and the foreign interference (that is bound to happen, since Trump has done nothing about it). It might mean some Republicans might have to hold their nose and vote for a president whose policies they don’t agree with. Tough. That president won’t be a national security threat, and that’s what should matter to patriotic Americans.
Regarding pandering by Departacus – He just promised to only choose a female running mate should he get the nomination. If he were a small business, that kind of discrimination is actually prosecutable!
And sure would like to see $hrilLIARy prosecuted under RICO statutes . . . . . . .
So would I like to see that prosecution JS, but I will not be holding my breath. Her political self destruction was a pleasure to see, but she needs to be held to account for her crimes.
You don’t know what RICO is.
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/
“$hrilLIARy”
Notice how I don’t do this with Trump, because I prefer to represent myself as a reasonably mature adult?
Have used $hrilLIARy for years – even here! It’s a great way to describe her without going into lengthy and sometimes boring prose . . . .
But thanks for he laugh – “reasonably mature adult” . . . . . .
I know you’ve used it here for years, and I’ve been pointing out how ridiculous it is for years. I’ll stop when you stop.
President Trump should nominate Hillary Clinton for the next opening on the supreme court.
Then we can finally get her investigated.
Pie here: Brilliant Common Sense! I love your mind.
Hillary Clinton has been investigated many times, but you knew that already.
Well, yeah. So did Vince Foster. What’s the body count up to now?
Spreading Vince Foster conspiracy theorism tells us a lot about your intelligence and character, RHT, and none of it good. Just ask his family.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vince-foster-was-my-brother-donald-trump-should-be-ashamed/2016/05/26/95c684f2-233f-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?utm_term=.a3d02becae2b
Be best.
More truth coming out drip by drip.
Deputy AG: Obama Admin Didn’t Tell Public ‘Full Story’ On Russia; ‘Someone’ Selectively Leaked Classified Info:
“Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein delivered some remarks at the Armenian Bar Association’s Public Servants Dinner Thursday night — and made several assertions about the Russia investigation, including the role of the “previous administration,” that have turned some heads.
Rosenstein then dropped a series of loaded claims about the Obama administration’s handling of Russian meddling, “selectively leaked” classified information, and the actions of fired FBI Director James Comey (h/t Ed Morrissey).
“Some critical decisions about the Russia investigation were made before I got there,” said Rosenstein. “The previous administration chose not to publicize the full story about Russian computer hackers and social media trolls, and how they relate to a broader strategy to undermine America. The FBI disclosed classified evidence about the investigation to ranking legislators and their staffers. Someone selectively leaked details to the news media. The FBI Director announced at a congressional hearing that there was a counterintelligence investigation that might result in criminal charges. Then the former FBI Director alleged that the President pressured him to close the investigation, and the President denied that the conversation occurred.”
He followed up that rather damning critique with an understated one-liner: “So that happened.” He then turned to a humorous reference to describe how he felt walking into his role as acting attorney general. “There is a story about firefighters who found a man on a burning bed. When they asked how the fire started, he replied, ‘I don’t know. It was on fire when I lay down on it.’ I know the feeling.”
The “bottom line,” he said, is “there was overwhelming evidence that Russian operatives hacked American computers and defrauded American citizens, and that is only the tip of the iceberg of a comprehensive Russian strategy to influence elections, promote social discord, and undermine America, just like they do in many other countries.”
Rosenstein also took a few lethal shots at the “mercenary critics,” who “get paid to express passionate opinions about any topic, often with little or no information,” and apparently believe it’s their job to “launch ad hominem attacks unrestricted by truth or morality,” “make threats,” and “spread fake stories.”
Below are Rosenstein’s full remarks (transcript provided by the Department of Justice):
https://www.dailywire.com/news/46471/deputy-ag-obama-admin-didnt-tell-public-full-story-james-barrett?%3Futm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwbrand
Rosey stood idly by while the Obumble weaponized DOJ did their skullduggery, and was one of those officials who signed off on lying to the FISA court.
He should have been removed at the same time Comey was shown the door.
No one lied to the FISA court. You are lying right now by claiming they did.
Nobody lies here. At times, we may be misinformed or misunderstood, but we don’t lie. ; )
At what point does routinely choosing to misinform oneself—and to share that misinformation—become inseparable from lying? The president has, according to the Washington Post, made about 10,000 separate false claims since 2016. I’m sure he genuinely believes some of them. But he has no ability to judge the accuracy and reliability of information and no interest in learning, so isn’t “liar” a fair term? He’s spreading lies either way.
The facts about the FISA warrant have been public for some time. The FBI told the court they suspected the dossier was paid for by a political opponent of Trump. There is no evidence they knew it was paid for by the Clinton campaign, and as I have explained dozens of times on this website, it would have made no sense to lie about this, since a) that would obviously occur as a possibility to the judges, b) there’s no material difference between telling the court it was probably paid for by a political opponent and specifying which political opponent, c) the dossier was not the only piece of evidence used to get the warrant, and d) it would have made no difference to the judges’ decisions to approve and later reapprove the warrant, since the funding of the dossier had no bearing on its credibility.
No one here has ever offered a substantial rebuttal to these reasons why the “FBI lied to get a warrant on Carter Page” conspiracy theory makes no sense. Not once. Instead they’ve simply repeated the conspiracy theory without ever addressing the holes in it that I’ve pointed out. How is that different from lying? If they genuinely believe it, it’s only through sheer force of will—they so desperately want to deflect from the fact that Trump surrounded himself with shady people with Russian connections, including someone who was legitimately suspected of being a Russian spy, that they have to concoct reasons to not accept the fact that Trump did that. Thus the Deep State conspiracy theories which cast the blame for the Trump campaign’s shadiness on everyone but Trump and his campaign. The Russia investigation was clearly necessary, legitimate, and wildly successful given that it resulted in the imprisonment of numerous campaign officials for very real crimes. But the deniers have to discredit the investigators in order to ignore all that.
That’s dishonesty, even if the people spreading these lies believe them wholeheartedly. They may lying to themselves as much as to everyone else, but they are still liars. I stand by the term, and I’ve defended it with sound reason. As always, I invite legitimate, fact-based challenges to my position.
Chris, you asked: “At what point does routinely choosing to misinform oneself—and to share that misinformation—become inseparable from lying?” I like to think we know each other well enough to know we would never deliberately say something false. Key word here “deliberately.” We’ve got good people here, this is a great cross section of opinions. We’re like a mini-me version of the nations voters. By now you should have guessed that I enjoy the sparing and the diversity of thought you all bring forward… sometimes you guys totally nail it! I appreciate that more than you could know – because it makes this blog worthwhile.
Next, I’m not going to defend Trump, but I think I actually get our President. I think I understand his style of talking. Given that, I try look right past the B-S part and focus on what he’s really saying and why he might have just said what he did.
“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”
“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”
A failed promise, and likely a lie, as I have said many, many times on this website. But Obama’s record of falsehoods is a lot shorter than Trump’s. Bush’s record would also be shorter. As would almost any other politician’s.
Pie here: Your mental gymnastics are mildly amusing. I hope you did not get a hernia with this intellectual contortion. A pathetic enumeration of lies is impressive, he who tells the most is the biggest liar said some witless tool in the grade school playground. Neener neener, neeeeeener. You can count on Chris for such. *YAWN*
Someone once said “If you are going to tell a lie, make it a big one.”
Pie here: Your mental gymnastics are mildly amusing. I hope you did not get a hernia with this intellectual contortion. A pathetic enumeration of lies is impressive, he who tells the most is the biggest liar said some witless tool in the grade school playground. Neener neener, neeeeeener. You can count on Chris for such. *YAWN*
Someone once said “If you are going to tell a lie, make it a big one.”
This doesn’t even mean anything. It could be a response to anything. It didn’t even require you to read what I wrote.
Why not just comment “I hate you, Chris,” on all of my posts from now on, since that’s all you’re saying? Save us both some time.
The “bottom line,” he said, is “there was overwhelming evidence that Russian operatives hacked American computers and defrauded American citizens, and that is only the tip of the iceberg of a comprehensive Russian strategy to influence elections, promote social discord, and undermine America, just like they do in many other countries.”
So why are you not concerned that the current president routinely denied that this happened even though he knew it was happening, pushed for closer relations with our attackers, lied about his campaign’s contacts with the attackers, and has done nothing to decrease the likelihood of future attacks?
Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and involved Ukranian military and foreign intelligence services. There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine.
This Politifact article points out numerous other differences as well:
Which leads to the other big distinction: The Russians got their materials through cyber-attacks, while the only telling document revealed by a Ukrainian lawmaker was the product of an official investigation.
“There’s a difference between dealing with the embassy and dealing with a covert intelligence operation,” Wittes said. “Are you dealing with government records, or are you dealing in stolen dirt?”
To be clear, we do not know if the hacked emails had any ties to contacts the Trump campaign did or didn’t have with Russians. But hacked emails are different from the results of a public investigation.
Taking that difference one step further, there was nothing inherently illegal in the quest for information on Manafort and how that might link Donald Trump to Russia. Wittes noted that from a research perspective, since Manafort’s work took place in Ukraine, “you pretty much have to go to the Ukrainians to get that.”
Other details also separate the two narratives.
Ukraine is seen as an ally to the United States, while Russia is at best a competitor and often called an enemy.
Lastly, the stories from Trump associates have changed over time as more press reports emerge. In the case of Donald Trump Jr., he first said he never represented the campaign in any meetings with Russians. Then he said there was a meeting, but it was about adoption laws. Then he said it was about Clinton, but it represented ordinary opposition research.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/12/did-ukraine-try-help-clinton-way-russia-helped-tru/
So essentially, the comparison is between a legitimate investigation and an illicit cyber-attack. Trump and his followers seem to be more upset about the former than the latter. Why? Because the latter helped Trump.
And nothing can deflect from the fact that Trump was happy to benefit from that attack, and denied its existence for years so that he could keep benefitting. He routinely attempted to shield the attackers from blame and criticism and advocated for more favorable policies toward those attackers. He even suggested collaborating with the attackers on a cybersecurity program!
This makes him a national security threat.
Related: Trump said there were zero contacts between his campaign and Russia. There were over 100.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-russia-government-contact-timeline-2018-7
Turns out the Mueller report is a vindication—of James Comey.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/mueller-report-comey-truth-trump-lied.html
Pie here: Your selective memory about Comey is amusing.
I need more than that, but thank you for at least not directly insulting me this time. What am I forgetting about Comey that you feel that article leaves out?
From yesterday:
Reporter: Did you tell him not to meddle in the next election?
Trump: Excuse me. I’m talking. I’m answering this question. You are very rude. So we had a good conversation about many different things. Okay.
Reporter: Did you tell him not to meddle in the next election?
Trump: We didn’t discuss that. Really, we didn’t discuss it. We discussed five or six things.
The collusion is in plain sight. No formal agreement or deal is necessary. Trump continues to refuse to acknowledge, condemn, or prevent Russia’s meddling in our democracy because he knows it benefits him. He’s angrier at the people who investigated Russian meddling than he is at Putin. This is a public signal that Russia can continue meddling in our elections and that there will be zero consequences for Russia, but perhaps there will be consequences for those who investigate Russia. Trump is in violation of his oath of office and must be impeached.