New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Trump/Kremlin collusion - the Thanksgiving edition

Bugsy McGurk

President
Here’s a great piece summarizing the whole thing, making two central points:

1. Despite the lies of Trump and his assistant liars, yapping about the “Russia hoax,” the Trump/Kremlin ties are not even in serious dispute. The GOP Senate Committee report itself yields some undeniable facts dispelling the “Russia hoax” claims made by Trump, etc.

2. The efforts of Trump and his enablers seeking to throw people off the trail should be ignored. Disregard the diversions and focus on the undisputed facts surrounding the Trump/Kremlin connections.

This piece lays out all the undeniable facts:


Patriots will read it and agree. Trump cultists will ignore it. Hopefully, the patriots ultimately prevail.
 

PNWest

America's BEST American: Impartial and Bipartisan
Remember folks....

You can't spell TRAITORS without the (R)s

 

PNWest

America's BEST American: Impartial and Bipartisan
Do you think Trump cultists even care? Even a little?
No. "Trump cultist" is synonymous with "mainstream Republican" these days. They are all either traitors themselves for supporting Trump or enablers for doing nothing to stop him. The best of them are like the German prison camp guards after WWII claiming that they were only following orders and were really the good Germans.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
LOL! You mean Marxists agree...

Trump Campaign Aides Had
Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence
By Michael S. Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo
New York Times, February 14, 2017

On Feb. 14, 2017 – just one day after Flynn resigned – the New York Times fanned the flames of the growing Trump-Russia inferno.

"Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials," the Times reported.

The story, written by three members of the paper's Pulitzer Prize-winning team, Michael S. Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo, also suggested that these suspicious "repeated contacts" were the basis for the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign's potential conspiracy with Russia: "American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election."

The article even threw in a plug for Christopher Steele, who, the Times said, is believed by senior FBI officials to have "a credible track record."

The story helped build momentum for the appointment of Special Counsel Mueller, and then quickly unraveled.

Four months after the Times' report – and just weeks after Mueller's hiring – FBI Director James Comey testified to Congress about the story, saying that "in the main, it was not true." When the Mueller report was released in April 2019, it contained no evidence of any contacts between Trump associates and Russian intelligence officials, senior or otherwise. And in July 2020, declassified documents showed that Peter Strzok, the top FBI counterintelligence agent who opened the Trump-Russia probe, had privately dismissed the article. The Times reporting, Strzok wrote upon its publication, was "misleading and inaccurate … we are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials."

To date, the Times has appended two minor corrections. The most recent one reads: "An earlier version of a photo caption with this article gave an incorrect middle initial for Paul Manafort. It is J., not D."

Rather than address its glaring errors, the Times left the story otherwise intact. When the Strzok notes disputing its claims emerged, the Times responded: "We stand by our reporting."

Earlier this year, the Times even claimed vindication. The occasion was an April 15, 2021, press release from the Treasury Department. The Treasury statement alleged that Konstantin Kilimnik, a former aide to Trump's one-time campaign manager, Paul Manafort, is a "known Russian Intelligence Services agent" who "provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy" during the 2016 election.

Writing that same day, Times reporters Mark Mazzetti and Michael S. Schmidt declared that Treasury's evidence-free press release — coupled with an evidence-free Senate Intelligence claim in August 2020 that Kilimnik is a "Russian intelligence officer" — now "confirm" the Times' report from February 2017.

The Treasury announcement did not explain how the department, which conducted no official Russiagate investigation, was prompted to lodge an explosive allegation that a multi-year FBI/Mueller investigation found no evidence for. It also does not name the position Kilimnik allegedly held in Russian intelligence – much less say whether he was a senior official. It also failed to address ample countervailing evidence:




Konstantin Kilimnik via RealClearInvestigations

Wanted in the U.S., Kilimnik shared his civilian (not diplomatic) passport with RCI.
Konstantin Kilimnik via RealClearInvestigations
In addition, no U.S. government or congressional investigator ever contacted him for questioning, Kilimnik told RCI in an April 2021 interview when he produced images of the civilian passport.

To declare victory, Mazzetti and Schmidt not only relied on one sentence of a press release but distorted the claims of their original story. Even if Kilimnik somehow proved to be a Russian intelligence officer, the Times' 2017 story had reported that the Trump campaign had engaged in "intercepted calls" with multiple "senior Russian intelligence officials" – not just one person, and at a "senior" level.

To elide that, Mazzetti and Schmidt abandoned the plural Russian "intelligence officials" to spin the Treasury press release as proof that "there had been numerous interactions between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the year before the election." It then returned to the use of the plural to further claim that Treasury's statement is "the strongest evidence to date that Russian spies had penetrated the inner workings of the Trump campaign."

RCI sent Mazzetti and Schmidt detailed questions about their February 2017 article and their claim, four years later, that a Senate report and a Treasury press release confirm it. They did not respond.

Five Trump-Russia 'Collusion' Corrections We Need From the Media Now -- Just for Starters | RealClearInvestigations
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
LOL! You mean Marxists agree...

To date, the Times has appended two minor corrections. The most recent one reads: "An earlier version of a photo caption with this article gave an incorrect middle initial for Paul Manafort. It is J., not D."

Rather than address its glaring errors, the Times left the story otherwise intact. When the Strzok notes disputing its claims emerged, the Times responded: "We stand by our reporting."

Earlier this year, the Times even claimed vindication. The occasion was an April 15, 2021, press release from the Treasury Department. The Treasury statement alleged that Konstantin Kilimnik, a former aide to Trump's one-time campaign manager, Paul Manafort, is a "known Russian Intelligence Services agent" who "provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy" during the 2016 election.

Writing that same day, Times reporters Mark Mazzetti and Michael S. Schmidt declared that Treasury's evidence-free press release — coupled with an evidence-free Senate Intelligence claim in August 2020 that Kilimnik is a "Russian intelligence officer" — now "confirm" the Times' report from February 2017.

The Treasury announcement did not explain how the department, which conducted no official Russiagate investigation, was prompted to lodge an explosive allegation that a multi-year FBI/Mueller investigation found no evidence for. It also does not name the position Kilimnik allegedly held in Russian intelligence – much less say whether he was a senior official. It also failed to address ample countervailing evidence:




Konstantin Kilimnik via RealClearInvestigations

Wanted in the U.S., Kilimnik shared his civilian (not diplomatic) passport with RCI.
Konstantin Kilimnik via RealClearInvestigations
In addition, no U.S. government or congressional investigator ever contacted him for questioning, Kilimnik told RCI in an April 2021 interview when he produced images of the civilian passport.

To declare victory, Mazzetti and Schmidt not only relied on one sentence of a press release but distorted the claims of their original story. Even if Kilimnik somehow proved to be a Russian intelligence officer, the Times' 2017 story had reported that the Trump campaign had engaged in "intercepted calls" with multiple "senior Russian intelligence officials" – not just one person, and at a "senior" level.

To elide that, Mazzetti and Schmidt abandoned the plural Russian "intelligence officials" to spin the Treasury press release as proof that "there had been numerous interactions between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the year before the election." It then returned to the use of the plural to further claim that Treasury's statement is "the strongest evidence to date that Russian spies had penetrated the inner workings of the Trump campaign."

RCI sent Mazzetti and Schmidt detailed questions about their February 2017 article and their claim, four years later, that a Senate report and a Treasury press release confirm it. They did not respond.
This one clearly doesn’t care. He does exactly what the author says the Trump cultists do - anything but accept the undeniable facts from the GOP Senate Committee report, which are summarized in the piece.

So deplorable.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
No. "Trump cultist" is synonymous with "mainstream Republican" these days. They are all either traitors themselves for supporting Trump or enablers for doing nothing to stop him. The best of them are like the German prison camp guards after WWII claiming that they were only following orders and were really the good Germans.
Just a few years ago we would have said that an unholy alliance between a major political party and the Kremlin was out of the question. And now it’s an undeniable fact.

Surreal.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
LOL! You mean Marxists agree...

Trump Campaign Aides Had
Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence
By Michael S. Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo
New York Times, February 14, 2017

On Feb. 14, 2017 – just one day after Flynn resigned – the New York Times fanned the flames of the growing Trump-Russia inferno.

"Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials," the Times reported.

The story, written by three members of the paper's Pulitzer Prize-winning team, Michael S. Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo, also suggested that these suspicious "repeated contacts" were the basis for the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign's potential conspiracy with Russia: "American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election."

The article even threw in a plug for Christopher Steele, who, the Times said, is believed by senior FBI officials to have "a credible track record."

The story helped build momentum for the appointment of Special Counsel Mueller, and then quickly unraveled.

Four months after the Times' report – and just weeks after Mueller's hiring – FBI Director James Comey testified to Congress about the story, saying that "in the main, it was not true." When the Mueller report was released in April 2019, it contained no evidence of any contacts between Trump associates and Russian intelligence officials, senior or otherwise. And in July 2020, declassified documents showed that Peter Strzok, the top FBI counterintelligence agent who opened the Trump-Russia probe, had privately dismissed the article. The Times reporting, Strzok wrote upon its publication, was "misleading and inaccurate … we are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials."

To date, the Times has appended two minor corrections. The most recent one reads: "An earlier version of a photo caption with this article gave an incorrect middle initial for Paul Manafort. It is J., not D."

Rather than address its glaring errors, the Times left the story otherwise intact. When the Strzok notes disputing its claims emerged, the Times responded: "We stand by our reporting."

Earlier this year, the Times even claimed vindication. The occasion was an April 15, 2021, press release from the Treasury Department. The Treasury statement alleged that Konstantin Kilimnik, a former aide to Trump's one-time campaign manager, Paul Manafort, is a "known Russian Intelligence Services agent" who "provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy" during the 2016 election.

Writing that same day, Times reporters Mark Mazzetti and Michael S. Schmidt declared that Treasury's evidence-free press release — coupled with an evidence-free Senate Intelligence claim in August 2020 that Kilimnik is a "Russian intelligence officer" — now "confirm" the Times' report from February 2017.

The Treasury announcement did not explain how the department, which conducted no official Russiagate investigation, was prompted to lodge an explosive allegation that a multi-year FBI/Mueller investigation found no evidence for. It also does not name the position Kilimnik allegedly held in Russian intelligence – much less say whether he was a senior official. It also failed to address ample countervailing evidence:




Konstantin Kilimnik via RealClearInvestigations

Wanted in the U.S., Kilimnik shared his civilian (not diplomatic) passport with RCI.
Konstantin Kilimnik via RealClearInvestigations
In addition, no U.S. government or congressional investigator ever contacted him for questioning, Kilimnik told RCI in an April 2021 interview when he produced images of the civilian passport.

To declare victory, Mazzetti and Schmidt not only relied on one sentence of a press release but distorted the claims of their original story. Even if Kilimnik somehow proved to be a Russian intelligence officer, the Times' 2017 story had reported that the Trump campaign had engaged in "intercepted calls" with multiple "senior Russian intelligence officials" – not just one person, and at a "senior" level.

To elide that, Mazzetti and Schmidt abandoned the plural Russian "intelligence officials" to spin the Treasury press release as proof that "there had been numerous interactions between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the year before the election." It then returned to the use of the plural to further claim that Treasury's statement is "the strongest evidence to date that Russian spies had penetrated the inner workings of the Trump campaign."

RCI sent Mazzetti and Schmidt detailed questions about their February 2017 article and their claim, four years later, that a Senate report and a Treasury press release confirm it. They did not respond.

Five Trump-Russia 'Collusion' Corrections We Need From the Media Now -- Just for Starters | RealClearInvestigations
What, exactly, do you think you have proven here? Do you think Kilimnick is not a Russian operative? The FBI has a warrant for his arrest.


Are you saying there were no contacts or are you thinking campaigns on both sides have similar contacts?

A Republican-led Senate panel has concluded that Trump campaign contacts with Russia in 2016 "represented a grave counterintelligence threat".
The nearly 1,000-page intelligence committee report laid out links between President Donald Trump's associates and Kremlin officials.
It is the fifth and probably final report into Russian meddling during the 2016 presidential election.


 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
This one clearly doesn’t care. He does exactly what the author says the Trump cultists do - anything but accept the undeniable facts from the GOP Senate Committee report, which are summarized in the piece.

So deplorable.

LOL! You are citing the Senate Republicans, the group with the lowest poll ratings in politics, as your "definitive source" of "proof" that Trump people were, what, "in contact" with "Russians?" What exactly do they say they did? Because it isn't illegal to talk to "Russians" (I do it almost every day).
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
What, exactly, do you think you have proven here? Do you think Kilimnick is not a Russian operative? The FBI has a warrant for his arrest.


Are you saying there were no contacts or are you thinking campaigns on both sides have similar contacts?

A Republican-led Senate panel has concluded that Trump campaign contacts with Russia in 2016 "represented a grave counterintelligence threat".
The nearly 1,000-page intelligence committee report laid out links between President Donald Trump's associates and Kremlin officials.
It is the fifth and probably final report into Russian meddling during the 2016 presidential election.


Another one citing Senate Republicans, the people with the lowest poll ratings in politics.

Are you saying there were no links between Hillary's people and "Russians?" Then what do you call this?

Danchenko, who worked from 2005-10 with Democratic policy luminaries at the Brookings Institution, also worked with “PR Executive-1,” according to the indictment. Martin confirmed to CNBC that “PR Executive-1” is, in fact, Dolan.

CNBC noted that Dolan, a vice president at the KGlobal communications firm, also has a history of involvement with the Clintons, chairing Bill Clinton’s campaign in Virginia in both 1992 and 1996. His PR work includes Russia-related issues.

Durham’s indictment suggests that Dolan introduced Danchenko to his Russian acquaintances, as Danchenko was reporting information to Steele. Those Russian acquaintances then allegedly provided some information Danchenko gave to Steele.

Moreover, Dolan had extensive contacts in the Russian government, met with officials at the Russian embassy in Washington, D.C., in 2016 and traveled to Moscow with Danchenko that year.

Ironically, the Clinton campaign would then accuse Trump of “collusion” with Russia, even though neither he nor his aides had such contacts in Russia.


Confirmed: 'PR Executive -1' in Durham Indictment Docs Is Charles Dolan Jr. (breitbart.com)
 

EatTheRich

President
Here’s a great piece summarizing the whole thing, making two central points:

1. Despite the lies of Trump and his assistant liars, yapping about the “Russia hoax,” the Trump/Kremlin ties are not even in serious dispute. The GOP Senate Committee report itself yields some undeniable facts dispelling the “Russia hoax” claims made by Trump, etc.

2. The efforts of Trump and his enablers seeking to throw people off the trail should be ignored. Disregard the diversions and focus on the undisputed facts surrounding the Trump/Kremlin connections.

This piece lays out all the undeniable facts:


Patriots will read it and agree. Trump cultists will ignore it. Hopefully, the patriots ultimately prevail.
Yes. And?
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
LOL! You are citing the Senate Republicans, the group with the lowest poll ratings in politics, as your "definitive source" of "proof" that Trump people were, what, "in contact" with "Russians?" What exactly do they say they did? Because it isn't illegal to talk to "Russians" (I do it almost every day).
Proving once again that Trump cultists have no interest in reality, and that they are fine with a Trump/Kremlin alliance formed for illicit purposes contrary to the interests of the USA.

Downright treasonous.
 

Red blooded American

Council Member
Here’s a great piece summarizing the whole thing, making two central points:

1. Despite the lies of Trump and his assistant liars, yapping about the “Russia hoax,” the Trump/Kremlin ties are not even in serious dispute. The GOP Senate Committee report itself yields some undeniable facts dispelling the “Russia hoax” claims made by Trump, etc.

2. The efforts of Trump and his enablers seeking to throw people off the trail should be ignored. Disregard the diversions and focus on the undisputed facts surrounding the Trump/Kremlin connections.

This piece lays out all the undeniable facts:


Patriots will read it and agree. Trump cultists will ignore it. Hopefully, the patriots ultimately prevail.
David Frum? Oh boy. The clowns are out big time. I'll help you out with rebuttal...


First, “scoffing at NATO,” “denigrating allies such as Germany” and “endorsing Britain’s exit from” the EU—all are First Amendment protected speech. Indeed, they are core First Amendment protected political speech. Such expressions of opinion can never form a permissible basis for investigating a citizen. To allow the expression of political opinion form a basis for investigating a citizen chills speech, drives policy-making discussions out of the public realm, and most importantly, empowers the security apparatus, in effect, to put its thumb on the scale of our elections. It is telling that Frum faults Trump for “publicly” expressing his views.



Second, a candidate’s breaking with past policy choices is precisely why new candidates come forward and why we have elections. A candidate’s having a public position at variance from prior policy can never form a permissible basis for investigating a citizen. To allow the expression of novel political opinion form a basis for investigating a citizen ends meaningful democracy. That’s why we have elections: to choose between competing, different policies.




So scoffing at Nato or endorsing brexit are now reasons to investigate candidates? Basically, investigate and attempt to imprison anyone that doesn't toe far left policy.

Horrifying post!
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
David Frum? Oh boy. The clowns are out big time. I'll help you out with rebuttal...


First, “scoffing at NATO,” “denigrating allies such as Germany” and “endorsing Britain’s exit from” the EU—all are First Amendment protected speech. Indeed, they are core First Amendment protected political speech. Such expressions of opinion can never form a permissible basis for investigating a citizen. To allow the expression of political opinion form a basis for investigating a citizen chills speech, drives policy-making discussions out of the public realm, and most importantly, empowers the security apparatus, in effect, to put its thumb on the scale of our elections. It is telling that Frum faults Trump for “publicly” expressing his views.



Second, a candidate’s breaking with past policy choices is precisely why new candidates come forward and why we have elections. A candidate’s having a public position at variance from prior policy can never form a permissible basis for investigating a citizen. To allow the expression of novel political opinion form a basis for investigating a citizen ends meaningful democracy. That’s why we have elections: to choose between competing, different policies.




So scoffing at Nato or endorsing brexit are now reasons to investigate candidates? Basically, investigate and attempt to imprison anyone that doesn't toe far left policy.

Horrifying post!
Nope. And that’s not why the investigation was launched. The investigation was launched because it was known that the Kremlin was illegally interfering with our election to get Trump elected, and there was reason to believe the Trumpies were in cahoots with the Kremlin criminals, which they were.

Patriots agree that it would have been criminal to NOT investigate that. You wouldn’t understand.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Nope. And that’s not why the investigation was launched. The investigation was launched because it was known that the Kremlin was illegally interfering with our election to get Trump elected, and there was reason to believe the Trumpies were in cahoots with the Kremlin criminals, which they were.

Patriots agree that it would have been criminal to NOT investigate that. You wouldn’t understand.
Hillary Dossier
 
Top