The Russia Hoax - Not

It's too bad a couple of certain posters aren't around anymore to whom we could say "yeah, we kinda told you so" regarding the recent revelations from the Senate Intelligence committee.

Waiting to hear apologies from people like Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Mate.

No I'm not.


They’re still here lurking.....but hitting the keys on Facebook. 


Oh, and they're tweeting like crazy. One is expending a LOT of energy telling bluechecks that they're not watching the DNC convention. The other one is calling the SSCI report a nothingburger, as usual.


All along, there were GOP Senators on the Intelligence Committee providing statements which we were told "proved" there was "no collusion".  They were either ignorant at the time they said it, or lied.

Either way, there were a lot of insults here from posters who said it was stupid, if not "unhinged", so continue to suspect collusion.


there were people here saying there was ZERO evidence of connections between Russians and the Trump campaign.  Absolutely nothing they said.  A hoax completely made up of whole cloth.

My position was always agnostic.  I never believed and still don't believe that Trump himself was being directed by Russian intelligence.  But I believed there was enough evidence to launch an investigation.  And there were people who didn't even believe the contacts should be investigated.

I think at this point, the minimum is that there was probable cause for an investigation.  So NOT zero evidence, not a fantasy, not a hoax, not made up.


The defenders of the Russia connection have always had an excuse to play down Kilimnik's role.  


the worst part was the insulting tone that some of them took. As if we're a bunch of stupid dupes and they are the smart, skeptical people who see through the "hoax."  As if I had bought in by just saying it looked like there were enough suspicious characters in the Trump campaign orbit for their to be some investigations.  Roger Stone and his boasts about wikileaks seemed enough imho to investigate.  Even if there was nothing illegal there, it looked hinky.  And even if the ridiculous theory that the DNC leak was an inside job was true, those were stolen documents that Stone seemed to have knowledge of ahead of their release.

no matter what anyone wants to say about it being "Russia hysteria" it is NOT ok for campaigns to be using documents stolen from the other campaign, however they acquire them.  Because even in the case of an "inside job" those emails were stolen from their rightful owner.


ml1 said:

the worst part was the insulting tone that some of them took. As if we're a bunch of stupid dupes and they are the smart, skeptical people who see through the "hoax."

 Well that's a big part of the appeal of conspiracy thinking, isn't it? The idea that you are part of an elite group smart enough to see the real truth. Conspiracy theories grant a feeling of empowerment in the face of confusion and uncertainty.


PVW said:

ml1 said:

the worst part was the insulting tone that some of them took. As if we're a bunch of stupid dupes and they are the smart, skeptical people who see through the "hoax."

 Well that's a big part of the appeal of conspiracy thinking, isn't it? The idea that you are part of an elite group smart enough to see the real truth. Conspiracy theories grant a feeling of empowerment in the face of confusion and uncertainty.

In other words, they're like a "progressive QAnon". 


ridski said:

Oh, and they're tweeting like crazy. One is expending a LOT of energy telling bluechecks that they're not watching the DNC convention. The other one is calling the SSCI report a nothingburger, as usual.

I heard one of them is even active on MOL


nohero said:

PVW said:

ml1 said:

the worst part was the insulting tone that some of them took. As if we're a bunch of stupid dupes and they are the smart, skeptical people who see through the "hoax."

 Well that's a big part of the appeal of conspiracy thinking, isn't it? The idea that you are part of an elite group smart enough to see the real truth. Conspiracy theories grant a feeling of empowerment in the face of confusion and uncertainty.

In other words, they're like a "progressive QAnon". 

 Well, we're all vulnerable to conspiracy theories. Who doesn't yearn for some certainty in the midst of chaos? But once people are that dug-in, engagement starts to feel like diminishing returns as the window of agreed upon, shared reality narrows.


PVW said:

 Well that's a big part of the appeal of conspiracy thinking, isn't it? The idea that you are part of an elite group smart enough to see the real truth. Conspiracy theories grant a feeling of empowerment in the face of confusion and uncertainty.

 and the durability of the conspiracy theories means they still don't have to admit they were wrong.  The GOP senators are in on the Russia hysteria too.  And Kilimnik wasn't an intelligent agent.  He was "connected" to Russian intelligence, so that means he's just some innocent guy who wanted to speak to Manafort.  And the Stone blurts about wikileaks mean nothing.  Coincidences, all of it.  And Jr. trying to get "dirt" on Hillary.  He failed, so it's meaningless.  Ad nauseum.


PVW said:

nohero said:

PVW said:

ml1 said:

the worst part was the insulting tone that some of them took. As if we're a bunch of stupid dupes and they are the smart, skeptical people who see through the "hoax."

 Well that's a big part of the appeal of conspiracy thinking, isn't it? The idea that you are part of an elite group smart enough to see the real truth. Conspiracy theories grant a feeling of empowerment in the face of confusion and uncertainty.

In other words, they're like a "progressive QAnon". 

 Well, we're all vulnerable to conspiracy theories. Who doesn't yearn for some certainty in the midst of chaos? But once people are that dug-in, engagement starts to feel like diminishing returns as the window of agreed upon, shared reality narrows.

 sure.  But I try to go with the simplest explanations when they are available to me.  Some of the Russia theories spouted here were so convoluted.  I'm pretty sure one of them was that the DNC leaked their own emails purposely because they knew it would lead to the Trump campaign getting involved with wikileaks, which the Democrats would then use against Trump.  I think that's known as a double reverse Vizzini with a twist.


ml1 said:

PVW said:

nohero said:

PVW said:

ml1 said:

the worst part was the insulting tone that some of them took. As if we're a bunch of stupid dupes and they are the smart, skeptical people who see through the "hoax."

 Well that's a big part of the appeal of conspiracy thinking, isn't it? The idea that you are part of an elite group smart enough to see the real truth. Conspiracy theories grant a feeling of empowerment in the face of confusion and uncertainty.

In other words, they're like a "progressive QAnon". 

 Well, we're all vulnerable to conspiracy theories. Who doesn't yearn for some certainty in the midst of chaos? But once people are that dug-in, engagement starts to feel like diminishing returns as the window of agreed upon, shared reality narrows.

 sure.  But I try to go with the simplest explanations when they are available to me.  Some of the Russia theories spouted here were so convoluted.  I'm pretty sure one of them was that the DNC leaked their own emails purposely because they knew it would lead to the Trump campaign getting involved with wikileaks, which the Democrats would then use against Trump.  I think that's known as a double reverse Vizzini with a twist.

 Well yes, didn't find it remotely convincing. So then the question eventually became, what am I hoping to get out of this? People out of the mainstream can often see things others miss or are blind to, after all. But in the end, there was such a flood of misinformation and foolishness that any nuggets of insight that might exist I couldn't hope to disentangle from the dreck.


HILARIOUS!

Back pedaling on the conspiracy which was the impetuous for the impeachment frenzy!


mtierney said:

HILARIOUS!

Back pedaling on the conspiracy which was the impetuous for the impeachment frenzy!

 You may be in the wrong thread.


ridski said:

 You may be in the wrong thread.

 Or in the wrong head....


mtierney said:

HILARIOUS!

Back pedaling on the conspiracy which was the impetuous for the impeachment frenzy!

let's analyze this:

  • HILARIOUS! -- no, nothing funny about Trump getting away with all of this
  • Back pedaling -- no, it actually moved this issue FORWARD
  • the conspiracy which was the impetuous (sic) for the impeachment frenzy! -- no that was Ukraine, this was Russia. Understandable from an American.  After all, people in our country can't find Mexico on a map if you gave them three chances.

Jaytee said:

ridski said:

 You may be in the wrong thread.

 Or in the wrong head....

 or just, you know, wrong.


ridski said:

mtierney said:

HILARIOUS!

Back pedaling on the conspiracy which was the impetuous for the impeachment frenzy!

 You may be in the wrong thread.

 Could be from a badly-translated social media post.


ml1 said:

let's analyze this:

  • HILARIOUS! -- no, nothing funny about Trump getting away with all of this
  • Back pedaling -- no, it actually moved this issue FORWARD
  • the conspiracy which was the impetuous (sic) for the impeachment frenzy! -- no that was Ukraine, this was Russia. Understandable from an American.  After all, people in our country can't find Mexico on a map if you gave them three chances.

 Better keep “Ukraine“ out of discussion — Biden and Hunter have a lot of ‘splaining” to do.

Russia has always been in the mix.


mtierney said:

 Better keep “Ukraine“ out of discussion — Biden and Hunter have a lot of ‘splaining” to do.


And predictably she drank their Kool Aid. Just wondering, does it taste the same as the Benghazi Kool Aid?


good point from blogger Adam Silverman

=============================================================

The real takeaway from this fifth volume of the report, and one that is not found anywhere in the report, is that despite knowing everything I am going to detail below, the 8 Republicans on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence had read the initial and penultimate drafts of this report, as well as the underlying supporting intelligence and materials by the time the President’s impeachment trial was held at the end of January. All of them knew exactly what was done, who did what, etc. All of them knew that a significant portion of the President’s defense – that Ukraine had really been conspiring with HRC and the Democratic Party and had framed Russia and the President to prevent him from becoming president – was not just a lie, but a lie created by Russian intelligence transmitted by Konstantin Kilimnik, a GRU asset and the handler for Paul Manafort, to Manafort and through him to the President and other Republicans. They knew his defense was Russian misinformation and agitprop. They knew what he had actually done in the campaign and since the campaign vis a vis Putin and Russia. And they still, every last ******* one of them, voted against hearing evidence and witnesses and actually holding a proper trial. And then they, every last ******* one of them, voted to acquit him.

This is the real conclusion and takeaway from reading this fifth volume of the multi-volume report. All 8 of these Republican senators – Burr, Rubio, Risch, Collins, Blunt, Cotton, Cornyn, and Sasse – knew and not only did nothing, they actively aided and abetted the cover up! They made themselves active participants of both furthering and covering up Vladimir Putin’s ongoing war against the United States!


I posted this elsewhere two days ago. No comment. Why do you think this story was buried in the Times and hardly mentioned on cable news?

https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/17/new-york-times-manipulates-fbi-lawyers-guilty-plea-to-hide-real-spygate-news/


mtierney said:

I posted this elsewhere two days ago. No comment. Why do you think this story was buried in the Times and hardly mentioned on cable news?

https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/17/new-york-times-manipulates-fbi-lawyers-guilty-plea-to-hide-real-spygate-news/

 um, because it's from thefederalist.com?

Yeah, that's it.

Are you under the impression that this site does journalism?

Silly.


mtierney said:

I posted this elsewhere two days ago. No comment. Why do you think this story was buried in the Times and hardly mentioned on cable news?

https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/17/new-york-times-manipulates-fbi-lawyers-guilty-plea-to-hide-real-spygate-news/

I guess that's another insult of the posters on this message board.  Speaking for myself, I'm not going to comment on every stupid and misleading piece of pro-Trump propaganda that's manufactured for the consumption of the ill-informed and ill-intentioned MAGAs, just because it's repeated on social media (such as this), WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PRODUCERS OF THAT GARBAGE WANT.

I hope I'm not being too vague about my opinion in this.

Lying right-wing "news" always says something is "buried" when what happens is, "accurate information was reported, and the event was put in context".  

I hope this thread isn't further derailed by the trollish repetition of that garbage from "The Federalist".


mtierney said:

I posted this elsewhere two days ago. No comment. Why do you think this story was buried in the Times and hardly mentioned on cable news?

https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/17/new-york-times-manipulates-fbi-lawyers-guilty-plea-to-hide-real-spygate-news/

 here's all I needed to read to know the article was propaganda.  and unfortunately the easily duped buy arguments like this:

Even though Clinesmith’s guilty plea is directly relevant to the false story the Times peddled for years, and even though it broke the news of his guilty plea, the publication hid the story deep in the paper and put a boring headline on it. “Ex-F.B.I. Lawyer Expected to Plead Guilty in Durham Investigation,” as if begging readers to move on. If they didn’t, the subhead told them that the news really wasn’t such a big deal. “Prosecutors are not expected to reveal any evidence of a broad anti-Trump conspiracy among law enforcement officials,” it claimed, without, well, evidence.

the author is claiming that there's something suspicious about the NYT not having evidence of something that DIDN'T happen.  We're at the point where such brazenly dishonest claims are SOP in publications like the Federalist, and nobody blinks an eye.


Another reason that "news" cited by Ms. Mtierney is irrelevant to this thread -  it doesn't change the fact that there was a basis for the surveillance of Carter Page. 

The Senate Intelligence Committee report being discussed here notes, "“The Carter Page FISA order and renewals are examined in detail in the DOJ OIG FISA Report. While there were several problems with the FBI's FISA renewals for Page, the Committee assesses that Page's previous ties to Russian intelligence officers, coupled with his Russian travel, justified the FBI's initial concerns about Page."


nohero said:

I hope this thread isn't further derailed by the trollish repetition of that garbage from "The Federalist".

Well, it's either that or cat & dog poop jokes I am afraid 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Advertise here!

Rentals

Sponsored Business

Find Business