More nonsense. I sure hope that English is your second language.
Russiagate
- Thread starter billvon
- Start date
Looks like you've succeeded.
forth
Fourth.
#SpicySpice | #WhatTheyVotedFor
The Baghdad Bob joke has been simmering at msnbc, too, pretty much since that first press briefing↗. It's a fun one. To the other, it was over a month ago I wondered aloud↱ if Spicer's job was in danger for the fact of his utterly pathetic performance.
I should know better than to attend rules of thumb amid the #trumpswindle.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "White House press secretary makes an unfortunate first impression". msnbc. 23 January 2017. msnbc.com. 23 March 2017. http://on.msnbc.com/2kqlfcP
Yes, I agree. For Trump to sell out his nation like that is crap.
Said the ignorant German in 1933...
Germany had economical and political problems at that time. They come up with Nazism to counteract communism which was on the rise. Beside they had to pay for the losses of ww1.
The United States had economical and political problems at that time. They come up with Trumpism to counteract liberalism which was on the rise. Beside they had to pay for the losses of The Longest War in American History. Not to mention the loss of 5 million factory jobs since 2000.
In other words, you just made my point...
Sounds like the Republican Party since Reagan: economic and political troubles, counteracting socialism, check and check - right?
#PutiSpice | #WhatTheyVotedFor
The transcript, and other notes.
Q Sean, can you say unequivocally that associates of President Trump did not collude with suspected Russian operatives and coordinate on the release―
MR. SPICER: So say the first part of it again.
Q Can you say unequivocally that associates of Donald Trump―
MR. SPICER: See, I think this is—with all due—and this is—the way that the term "associates" is flown around, I don’t understand what that means. If you're talking about employees of the campaign, employees of the transition or in the White House, that's one thing. But the way that this term "associates" gets thrown out—and again, we talked about this yesterday—you pull out a gentleman who was employed by someone for five months and talk about a client that he had 10 years ago? No, I can't unequivocally say that nobody ever in his past, who may or not have come in contact with him, sat next to him in a plane, who grew up with him in grade school—because that's, a lot of times, this―
Q This gentleman, Paul Manafort, you're referring to was a campaign chairman―
MR. SPICER: No, I get it. And you're—I understand who he is. Thank you. I'm well aware of Paul, I read it out yesterday. But the point that I'm making is, when you use a term like "associate," and you use all of these subjective terms, there's a reason that you're doing it, which is because you don’t have anything concrete. If you do, come back to me and ask, "does anyone in the White House," "is anyone in the transition." But when you throw out a vague term like that, it's a catch-all. Can you be certain that no one who works for Time Life Turner has ever done anything illegal? I think that's a pretty broad way of casting a net—or who has visited the building. I mean, that's what you're equivocally saying.
(WhiteHouse.gov↱)
MR. SPICER: So say the first part of it again.
Q Can you say unequivocally that associates of Donald Trump―
MR. SPICER: See, I think this is—with all due—and this is—the way that the term "associates" is flown around, I don’t understand what that means. If you're talking about employees of the campaign, employees of the transition or in the White House, that's one thing. But the way that this term "associates" gets thrown out—and again, we talked about this yesterday—you pull out a gentleman who was employed by someone for five months and talk about a client that he had 10 years ago? No, I can't unequivocally say that nobody ever in his past, who may or not have come in contact with him, sat next to him in a plane, who grew up with him in grade school—because that's, a lot of times, this―
Q This gentleman, Paul Manafort, you're referring to was a campaign chairman―
MR. SPICER: No, I get it. And you're—I understand who he is. Thank you. I'm well aware of Paul, I read it out yesterday. But the point that I'm making is, when you use a term like "associate," and you use all of these subjective terms, there's a reason that you're doing it, which is because you don’t have anything concrete. If you do, come back to me and ask, "does anyone in the White House," "is anyone in the transition." But when you throw out a vague term like that, it's a catch-all. Can you be certain that no one who works for Time Life Turner has ever done anything illegal? I think that's a pretty broad way of casting a net—or who has visited the building. I mean, that's what you're equivocally saying.
(WhiteHouse.gov↱)
That was today.
Yesterday, Jeet Heer↱ of the New Republic wondered, "Why can’t Sean Spicer give a straight answer about possible treason in the White House?"
At the White House press briefing, Peter Alexander of NBC asked the press secretary, “Can you say with certainty right now that there’s nobody working for this White House that is presently working in the interest of a foreign government?” There would seem to be only one answer to this question. But Spicer gave a remarkable reply, saying, “I can tell you that every form has been filled out.”
Spicer added that the White House “absolutely” trusts its people to fill out these “forms” correctly. He elaborated at length: “People are filling out forms. So to sit here and ask me whether I can vouch for, whatever it is, a few hundred people who have filled out everything, that would be ridiculous for me to stand here and suggest I possibly could. But what I can tell you is that under the penalty of law, every single person who has filled out a form, that is being vetted by whatever level of classification that they need to get by the appropriate law enforcement agencies or HR entities.”
Spicer added that the White House “absolutely” trusts its people to fill out these “forms” correctly. He elaborated at length: “People are filling out forms. So to sit here and ask me whether I can vouch for, whatever it is, a few hundred people who have filled out everything, that would be ridiculous for me to stand here and suggest I possibly could. But what I can tell you is that under the penalty of law, every single person who has filled out a form, that is being vetted by whatever level of classification that they need to get by the appropriate law enforcement agencies or HR entities.”
It was, as Heer noted, a very odd response.
It seems quite clear the Trump administration bears exposure, and also that they know it.
____________________
Notes:
Heer, Jeet. "Why can’t Sean Spicer give a straight answer about possible treason in the White House?" The New Republic. 22 March 2017. NewRepublic.com. 23 March 2017. http://bit.ly/2nN4MFv
Spicer, Sean. "Daily Press Briefing by the Press Secretary—#27". The White House Office of the Press Secretary. 23 March 2017. WhiteHouse.gov. 23 March 2017. http://bit.ly/2mWM4GJ
So it turns out that the CIA knew well before the election that Russia was trying to meddle, and they sat on the information:
====================
C.I.A. Had Evidence of Russian Effort to Help Trump Earlier Than Believed
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
APRIL 6, 2017
WASHINGTON — The C.I.A. told senior lawmakers in classified briefings last summer that it had information indicating that Russia was working to help elect Donald J. Trump president, a finding that did not emerge publicly until after Mr. Trump’s victory months later, former government officials say.
The briefings indicate that intelligence officials had evidence of Russia’s intentions to help Mr. Trump much earlier in the presidential campaign than previously thought. The briefings also reveal a critical split last summer between the C.I.A. and counterparts at the F.B.I., where a number of senior officials continued to believe through last fall that Russia’s cyberattacks were aimed only at disrupting America’s political system, and not at getting Mr. Trump elected, according to interviews.
The former officials said that in late August — 10 weeks before the election — John O. Brennan, then the C.I.A. director, was so concerned about increasing evidence of Russia’s election meddling that he began a series of urgent, individual briefings for eight top members of Congress, some of them on secure phone lines while they were on their summer break.
It is unclear what new intelligence might have prompted the classified briefings. But with concerns growing both internally and publicly at the time about a significant Russian breach of the Democratic National Committee, the C.I.A. began seeing signs of possible connections to the Trump campaign, the officials said. By the final weeks of the campaign, Congress and the intelligence agencies were racing to understand the scope of the Russia threat.
In an Aug. 25 briefing for Harry Reid, then the top Democrat in the Senate, Mr. Brennan indicated that Russia’s hackings appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election, according to two former officials with knowledge of the briefing.
The officials said Mr. Brennan also indicated that unnamed advisers to Mr. Trump might be working with the Russians to interfere in the election.
=====================================
====================
C.I.A. Had Evidence of Russian Effort to Help Trump Earlier Than Believed
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
APRIL 6, 2017
WASHINGTON — The C.I.A. told senior lawmakers in classified briefings last summer that it had information indicating that Russia was working to help elect Donald J. Trump president, a finding that did not emerge publicly until after Mr. Trump’s victory months later, former government officials say.
The briefings indicate that intelligence officials had evidence of Russia’s intentions to help Mr. Trump much earlier in the presidential campaign than previously thought. The briefings also reveal a critical split last summer between the C.I.A. and counterparts at the F.B.I., where a number of senior officials continued to believe through last fall that Russia’s cyberattacks were aimed only at disrupting America’s political system, and not at getting Mr. Trump elected, according to interviews.
The former officials said that in late August — 10 weeks before the election — John O. Brennan, then the C.I.A. director, was so concerned about increasing evidence of Russia’s election meddling that he began a series of urgent, individual briefings for eight top members of Congress, some of them on secure phone lines while they were on their summer break.
It is unclear what new intelligence might have prompted the classified briefings. But with concerns growing both internally and publicly at the time about a significant Russian breach of the Democratic National Committee, the C.I.A. began seeing signs of possible connections to the Trump campaign, the officials said. By the final weeks of the campaign, Congress and the intelligence agencies were racing to understand the scope of the Russia threat.
In an Aug. 25 briefing for Harry Reid, then the top Democrat in the Senate, Mr. Brennan indicated that Russia’s hackings appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election, according to two former officials with knowledge of the briefing.
The officials said Mr. Brennan also indicated that unnamed advisers to Mr. Trump might be working with the Russians to interfere in the election.
=====================================
#PutiTrump | #WhatTheyVotedFor
Click to rock on a hard line.
So, it occurred to me to do a particular blog post↱, and this is what I was after with it:
• Milder, Zachary. "Trump's New Russia Adviser Has Deep Ties to Kremlin's Gazprom". Bloomberg. 30 March 2016↱.
• Ioffe, Julia. "The Mystery of Trump's Man in Moscow". Politico. 23 September 2016↱.
• Nechepurenko, Ivan. "Carter Page, Ex-Trump Adviser With Russian Ties, Visits Moscow". The New York Times. 8 December 2016↱.
• Schwarz, Jon. "Carter Page, at Center of Trump Russian Investigation, Writes Bizarre Letter to DOJ Blaming Hillary Clinton". The Intercept. 15 February 2017↱.
• Woodruff, Judy. "Former Trump adviser says he had no Russian meetings in the last year". News Hour. 15 February 2017↱.
• Reilly, Steve. "Two other Trump advisers also spoke with Russian envoy during GOP convention". USA Today. 2 March 2017↱.
• Helsel, Phil. "Carter Page, Adviser Once Linked to Trump Campaign, Met With Russian Ambassador". NBC News. 3 March 2017↱.
• Herridge, Catherine, Pamela K. Browne, and Christopher Wallace. "Ex-Trump adviser Carter Page rips 'false narrative' on Russia collusion". FOX News. 30 March 2017↱.
• Ross, Brian and Matthew Mosk. "Trump campaign adviser Carter Page targeted for recruitment by Russian spies". ABC News. 4 April 2017↱.
• Groll, Elias. "Russian Spy Met Trump Adviser Carter Page and Thought He Was an 'Idiot'". Foreign Policy. 4 April 2017↱.
• Kaczynski, Andrew. "Former Trump adviser Carter Page says he didn't disclose Russian spy contacts to campaign". CNN. 5 April 2017↱.
• Ioffe, Julia. "The Mystery of Trump's Man in Moscow". Politico. 23 September 2016↱.
• Nechepurenko, Ivan. "Carter Page, Ex-Trump Adviser With Russian Ties, Visits Moscow". The New York Times. 8 December 2016↱.
• Schwarz, Jon. "Carter Page, at Center of Trump Russian Investigation, Writes Bizarre Letter to DOJ Blaming Hillary Clinton". The Intercept. 15 February 2017↱.
• Woodruff, Judy. "Former Trump adviser says he had no Russian meetings in the last year". News Hour. 15 February 2017↱.
• Reilly, Steve. "Two other Trump advisers also spoke with Russian envoy during GOP convention". USA Today. 2 March 2017↱.
• Helsel, Phil. "Carter Page, Adviser Once Linked to Trump Campaign, Met With Russian Ambassador". NBC News. 3 March 2017↱.
• Herridge, Catherine, Pamela K. Browne, and Christopher Wallace. "Ex-Trump adviser Carter Page rips 'false narrative' on Russia collusion". FOX News. 30 March 2017↱.
• Ross, Brian and Matthew Mosk. "Trump campaign adviser Carter Page targeted for recruitment by Russian spies". ABC News. 4 April 2017↱.
• Groll, Elias. "Russian Spy Met Trump Adviser Carter Page and Thought He Was an 'Idiot'". Foreign Policy. 4 April 2017↱.
• Kaczynski, Andrew. "Former Trump adviser Carter Page says he didn't disclose Russian spy contacts to campaign". CNN. 5 April 2017↱.
And then, I don't know, I guess things had been too quiet for too long, because the day after that blog post, the new headline broke—
• Nakashima, Ellen, Devlin Barrett, and Adam Entous. "FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor Trump adviser Carter Page". The Washington Post. 11 April 2017↱.
—and I had to write another↱.
Might as well add this one:
Shane, Scott, Mark Mazzetti, and Adam Goldman. "Trump Adviser's Visit to Moscow Got the F.B.I.'s Attention". The New York Times. 19 April 2017↱.
No, I haven't written a blog post, yet.
But, yes, Carter Page would seem to be the man of the hour.
Could it be?
https://twitter.com/TheRickWilson/status/858463055910498304
Perhaps Trump should begin gathering his legal beagles now, avoiding the Christmas rush...
https://twitter.com/TheRickWilson/status/858463055910498304
Perhaps Trump should begin gathering his legal beagles now, avoiding the Christmas rush...
#PutiTrump | #WhatTheyVotedFor
This should be interesting:
Former acting attorney general Sally Yates is expected to testify to Congress next week that she expressed alarm to the White House about President Donald Trump's national security adviser's contacts with the Russian ambassador, which could contradict how the administration has characterized her counsel.
Yates is expected to recount in detail her Jan. 26 conversation about Michael Flynn and that she saw discrepancies between the administration's public statements on his contacts with ambassador Sergey Kislyak and what really transpired, according to a person familiar with that discussion and knowledgeable about Yates's plans for her testimony. The person spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt the testimony.
The person said Yates is expected to say that she expressed alarm to White House counsel Don McGahn about Flynn's conversation with Kislyak. White House officials have said that Yates merely wanted to give them a "heads-up" about Flynn's Russian contacts.
(Associated Press↱)
Yates is expected to recount in detail her Jan. 26 conversation about Michael Flynn and that she saw discrepancies between the administration's public statements on his contacts with ambassador Sergey Kislyak and what really transpired, according to a person familiar with that discussion and knowledgeable about Yates's plans for her testimony. The person spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt the testimony.
The person said Yates is expected to say that she expressed alarm to White House counsel Don McGahn about Flynn's conversation with Kislyak. White House officials have said that Yates merely wanted to give them a "heads-up" about Flynn's Russian contacts.
(Associated Press↱)
You know, proverbially so, at least. I'm expecting it should have at least some impact, though it's hard to tell what that will be. Probably a lot of high-stakes, pulse-pounding, vein-throbbing, breathless analysis reminding us that somehow we still haven't a clue what's going on.
The third paragraph has been rewritten while I'm posting this:
Yates is expected to say that she told White House counsel Don McGahn that she was concerned Flynn's communications with Kislyak could leave Flynn in a compromised position as a result of the contradictions between the public depictions of the calls and what intelligence officials knew to be true, the person said. White House officials have said publicly that Yates merely wanted to give them a "heads-up" about Flynn's Russian contacts, but Yates is likely to testify that she approached the White House with alarm, according to the person.
____________________Notes:
Tucker, Eric. "AP source: Yates to testify on warning White House on Flynn". Associated Press. 2 May 2017. APNews.com. 2 May 2017. http://apne.ws/2qqhZVx
Oh I wonder who is behind this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39830379
Russia most likely hacked for trump because he is incompetent and woudl likely render NATO incompetent as well, likewise russia is hacking for rightwing isolationist nationalist in EU countries that will degrade the power of the EU and NATO. This is a no brainier that Russia wants it competitor nations run by idiots that will pull out of the only military that keeps them in check.
Russia most likely hacked for trump because he is incompetent and woudl likely render NATO incompetent as well, likewise russia is hacking for rightwing isolationist nationalist in EU countries that will degrade the power of the EU and NATO. This is a no brainier that Russia wants it competitor nations run by idiots that will pull out of the only military that keeps them in check.
I think you got it wrong. The Russians, like many other countries from China to Israel, tried to hack both the DNC and the RNC, but the RNC was made more secure. They took advice from Trump who has better tools from the private sector. The hacking of the DNC was not even hacking, but due to someone clicking on a link that allowed entry into the system. It is like you clicking on a virus that is in an e-mail attachment, which cant get into the system by itself. You have to be an accomplice. This is being misrepresented by leftist propaganda as a sophisticated hacking tactic but reality any high school rookie can do this.
This is all a distraction from the central question which is, since the Russians and others were phishing, and Hillary was using an even less secure private server, to process classified information, was her server phished and/or hacked by the Russians and others? And if so, was she vulnerable to black mail or was she selling influence via this server?
We all know she erased over half the content of her server, so nobody could see what had been hacked. For example, Hillary was interacting with President Obama, since she was Secretary of State. These correspondences should be on that server. To my knowledge, the FBI never mentioned these, since none were found. These were erased and all would have been classified. My guess is those who complain the most; Democrats, are covering up to save their own butts.
The scam is to blame Trump, so the real security issue is not addressed. It is like two children are playing in a room they are not supposed to play in. One child breaks the mother's heirloom vase. He can man up and confess, or if he is a democrat he can reach the mother first, before she sees, and blame his sibling, so he can take the heat off himself and act like the innocent victim and dutiful son.
Last edited:
And coincidentally Macron was less secure, and his opponent someone who has personally visited Putin and supported Russia taking of chrimea was "more secure"?
Who the fuck cares about Hillary now? Not Trump, no one, and she not going to jail either.
Where is your evidence comrade Wellwisher that China or Israel tried to hack both the DNC and RNC servers? There is no such evidence comrade. There is however overwhelming evidence Russia hacked into both the DNC and the RNC servers. But Russia only released material from DNC servers in an attempt to get Trump elected. There is no evidence the RNC servers were more “secure” as you allege. And there is no evidence Russia ever attempted to hack Trump’s servers. That’s not proof Trump had better technology because he was from the private sector as you have asserted.
There is no evidence Russia phished Hillary. They phished one of her advisers, but that doesn’t mean she was phished. There is no evidence a) Hillary’s private server was less secure or b) it was ever hacked by Russia or anyone else for that matter, per testimony FBI Director Comey under oath before Congress.
No. We don’t know she erased over half the content of her server. We know she erased 33,000 personal emails. I’m not as prominent as Hillary Clinton and I routinely purge thousands of emails from my email too. It’s good server management. I’m guessing, but I’m pretty sure 33,000 emails isn’t anywhere close to accounting for half her server content. Emails just don’t take up that much space.
Deleting her emails doesn’t delete evidence affect the ability of an analyst to determine whether a server has been hacked or not. It’s those damn facts again comrade. My guess is Republicans like you are making shit up again as you are prone to do.
LOL…I’m always amazed by your illogical analogies comrade. There is no scam to blame Trump. There is an investigation to discover how Russia influenced the election of 2016, and it’s very obvious that bothers Trump, his devotees, and Republicans at large. No one is blaming at this point. People are investigating, and already you Trumpies are playing the victim card.
You didn’t mind 30 years of baseless allegations when it came to the Clintons. But now when there is a very real and credible problem involving Republicans you want to play the victim card? Get real Comrade Wellwisher. Russia did attempt to influence our election in order to get Trump elected, and there is evidence of illegal collusion. Unfortunately for you and your fellow comrades Wellwisher, we are still a nation of laws.
There is no evidence Russia phished Hillary. They phished one of her advisers, but that doesn’t mean she was phished. There is no evidence a) Hillary’s private server was less secure or b) it was ever hacked by Russia or anyone else for that matter, per testimony FBI Director Comey under oath before Congress.
No. We don’t know she erased over half the content of her server. We know she erased 33,000 personal emails. I’m not as prominent as Hillary Clinton and I routinely purge thousands of emails from my email too. It’s good server management. I’m guessing, but I’m pretty sure 33,000 emails isn’t anywhere close to accounting for half her server content. Emails just don’t take up that much space.
Deleting her emails doesn’t delete evidence affect the ability of an analyst to determine whether a server has been hacked or not. It’s those damn facts again comrade. My guess is Republicans like you are making shit up again as you are prone to do.
LOL…I’m always amazed by your illogical analogies comrade. There is no scam to blame Trump. There is an investigation to discover how Russia influenced the election of 2016, and it’s very obvious that bothers Trump, his devotees, and Republicans at large. No one is blaming at this point. People are investigating, and already you Trumpies are playing the victim card.
You didn’t mind 30 years of baseless allegations when it came to the Clintons. But now when there is a very real and credible problem involving Republicans you want to play the victim card? Get real Comrade Wellwisher. Russia did attempt to influence our election in order to get Trump elected, and there is evidence of illegal collusion. Unfortunately for you and your fellow comrades Wellwisher, we are still a nation of laws.
The only question at this time is was Trump a unwilling idiot that Putin liked for strategic reasons, or was a willing conspirator.