Former Top White House aide exposes Russian disinformation

dqhall said:

I bought a Kindle version of the Washington Post edition of “The Mueller Report,” and read it. Russian spies were working for the Trump campaign including arranging Trump rallies. Republicans were not proven to be directing Russian activities. Roger Stone (Wikileaks) was recently judged guilty for his role in the Russian election meddling scandal. Trump’s son and son in law really met with Russian agents in Trump Tower before Russian hackers leaked stolen DNC emails. Mueller concluded there is substantial evidence Trump obstructed justice.

Click to expand...

Yeah all debunked. Have no time to revisit the false narratives. For the record Roger Stone is in big trouble because of his arrogance and nothing to do with WikiLeaks. Like all the indictments thus far, deals were made and then for one reason or other the accused backs off thinking they can beat it and then gets charged for lying or obstructing justice. No one has been convicted of a crime dealing with collusion with Russia.

Yarddog said:

The GOP report admitted that it wasn't complete and more info could be revealed by ongoing investigations, which they have. Mueller didn't clear Trump of collision and the Roger Stone trial showed that the report was wrong about Trump's people being involved in wiki leaks.

Click to expand...

The Mueller report did state there was no collusion with Russia or Russian agents. It did conclude Russia tried and Trump's campaign did not bite the bait.

Halbhh said:

What Nunes was repeating, the wording about Ukrainian interference, helps to divert people from Trump's actions.

Click to expand...

No it alerts Americans to the narrative that was buried by Russiagate and the discredited Steele dossier.

Halbhh said:

Have a look at something in the middle:

But Andrii Telizhenko, who worked as a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy under Shulyar, said she instructed him to help Chalupa research connections between Trump, Manafort and Russia. “Oksana said that if I had any information, or knew other people who did, then I should contact Chalupa,” recalled Telizhenko, who is now a political consultant in Kiev. “They were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa,” he said, adding “Oksana was keeping it all quiet,” but “the embassy worked very closely with” Chalupa.

So far...it's only making this democrat worker's effort to find Trump campaign wrongdoing with help from some in Ukraine look like a righteous effort, since we know Manafort has been convicted, is now in prison.
They were in this instance (just above) simply trying to find out what the wrong things Manafort was doing with Russia.
.....

Did you read the article I offered to you?

Click to expand...

Keep reading. No one ever found any 'black ledger.' And yet Manafort is in prison based on the word of a Ukrainian MP. The FBI nor DoJ never received the physical evidence and the article mentions that whatever anyone did see was never analyzed forensically. I'd be mighty angry sitting in a jail knowing this.

Halbhh said:

Wow, did you see this (from the same article you want me to read)? --

"About a month-and-a-half after Chalupa first started receiving hacking alerts, someone broke into her car outside the Northwest Washington home where she lives with her husband and three young daughters, she said. They “rampaged it, basically, but didn’t take anything valuable — left money, sunglasses, $1,200 worth of golf clubs,” she said, explaining she didn’t file a police report after that incident because she didn’t connect it to her research and the hacking.

But by the time a similar vehicle break-in occurred involving two family cars, she was convinced that it was a Russia-linked intimidation campaign. The police report on the latter break-in noted that “both vehicles were unlocked by an unknown person and the interior was ransacked, with papers and the garage openers scattered throughout the cars. Nothing was taken from the vehicles.”

Then, early in the morning on another day, a woman “wearing white flowers in her hair” tried to break into her family’s home at 1:30 a.m., Chalupa said. Shulyar told Chalupa that the mysterious incident bore some of the hallmarks of intimidation campaigns used against foreigners in Russia, according to Chalupa."

“This is something that they do to U.S. diplomats, they do it to Ukrainians. Like, this is how they operate. They break into people’s homes. They harass people. They’re theatrical about it,” Chalupa said. “They must have seen when I was writing to the DNC staff, outlining who Manafort was, pulling articles, saying why it was significant, and painting the bigger picture.”
...
Chalupa this month told Politico that, as her research and role in the election started becoming more public, she began receiving death threats, along with continued alerts of state-sponsored hacking. But she said, “None of this has scared me off.”

What do you think of that?

Click to expand...

I think it was a rival Ukrainian corrupt faction. Or the holder of the black ledger to ensure the recipient got the hint that what she had was valid information. Case in point why this needs to be investigated.

Halbhh said:

Ok.

Meanwhile, did you read the short Politico article I asked you to read above?

Click to expand...

Please link me again. Must have missed it with all our back and forth postings.

Halbhh said:

Ok, this was just a random article from another point of view from the same site, which might not fit a view of Trump from certain media. And see just above the Luke quote for why it matters how Trump acts:

Jake Tapper: Trump is trying to ‘gaslight the country’

Click to expand...

Thanks. I have to say given the complicity of the media in promoting these false narratives on Trump, I now come to the conclusion he has every right to defend himself in public and in social media.

Tapper should talk. He has been a chief propagandist for the Steele dossier and continued pseudo narratives propagated. Of course one will get frustrated 'fact checking' according to their narrative when someone else is providing information from their narrative. It is why the media ignores hard facts like economic numbers and actual accomplishments.

Where Tapper and even folks here who post "fact check" data fail usually is these 'fact check' organizations are not neutral. And they try to fact check rhetoric and in general concepts, and estimates. For example, Fact Check actually called Trump false for saying 1/3 of women who cross the southern border are sexually abused. They came out and said "false" it is actually 27%. Forgive me, I can't take stock in what those places put out these days. They are partisan.

This is how I judge information in politics. Someone says they are going to do something, I look to see if they do it. Trump has essentially done or began everything he said he was going to do. Frankly, I have known no president in my lifetime of over 50 years who has come close. Fact check can go on and on calling the president a liar because he says "we have put up 500 miles of border wall" and they call him a liar because only 250 miles of it are new.

So Jake Tapper should take his own advice.

Halbhh said:

Ok. I'll put very short summary of my own at the bottom. Here's what appears to be a typical example one famous site rates as a 'lie'.:

"As former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified during the second day of the public impeachment hearings, President Donald Trump bashed her career record on Twitter.

"Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad," Trump tweeted during the Nov. 15 hearing. "She started off in Somalia, how did that go? ..."

...
We couldn’t pinpoint exactly when Yovanovitch was stationed in Somalia, but it appears she was there in the late 1980s. We know that she joined the foreign service in 1986 and said that Somalia was her first job.

"For my first job, I moved to Mogadishu, Somalia," she told the New York Times in 2016. "This was before the internet, and it took three months from the time I wrote a letter to the time I got one back."

Ken Menkhaus, a political scientist at Davidson College in North Carolina, was in Somalia during the same time as Yovanovitch on a Fulbright. He said he didn’t personally know her although he knew others in the embassy at the time.

In 1988, the U.S. government froze aid to Somalia in response to reports about human rights abuses and the government attacking its own people, Menkhaus said. Other countries also withdrew aid. The Somali government lost the ability to pay its soldiers, the soldiers defected and a civil war swept the country.

The U.S. government cut off aid to Somalia, a country whose strategic importance was dwindling as the Cold War ended.

"None of that had anything to do with the U.S. foreign service in Mogadishu or Washington," Menkaus said. "The idea that any single U.S. government official could be blamed for the early period of civil war which was when she there is ludicrous."

Trump wrongly casts blame on Yovanovitch for Somalia
-----------

I agree this amounts to lying. An intentional smear or demeaning based an a clearly misleading characterization is....a lie. It's a 'lie' according to someone from Oklahoma. I think for people from other states too.

Click to expand...

Former Top White House aide exposes Russian disinformation. I think this is the subject. But understand why just about every thread devolves into anything about Trump.

redleghunter said:

The hoax is the Democrat crusade on the Steele dossier which is the hoax.

Click to expand...

But Devon Nunes doesn't say that nor is the Steele dossier a hoax. The hoaxes were the social media campaign to smear political candidates by the Russians. For Nunes and many on the right, the hoax is the Russian meddling investigation, which is nothing less than a lie.

Nunes made that clear if you actually watched his full comments.

Click to expand...

Then provide the direct quotes where Nunes says that the Russian election interference was not a hoax but only the Steele dossier was.

redleghunter said:

When he or Trump says "Russian hoax" they refer to the DNC/HRC bought Steele dossier which led to FISA warrants and the Mueller investigation.

Click to expand...

The Senate Intelligence Committee has already debunked this theory.

redleghunter said:

That is what they are referring to as "hoax."

Click to expand...

Not if he doesn't qualify his remarks to include this, which he never has.

redleghunter said:

The Trump collusion portion, not the various hacking and information campaigns as outlined in the House Intel committee report (which the Democrats on committee refused to sign off on). Please after three years you have to see the line of division .

Click to expand...

And so do you. No investigation has cleared Trump or his campaign of Russian collusion. That Mueller did not find enough evidence to charge Trump with "cooperation" in a criminal conspiracy with Russia is not clearing him of collusion, which did occur. It just did not rise to the point of cooperation.

redleghunter said:

Yes! The Steele dossier bought by Hillary and promoted and leaked to the DoJ, select members of Congress, the intelligence community and eventually the media via Buzzfeed.

Click to expand...

No. Just as Nunes fails to qualify the difference, Trump does the same. The dossier was leaked by John McCain.

redleghunter said:

She was grossly misinformed, forgot about the House report, and if she was oblivious to the report, received a thick 240 page paper copy while she sat in front of the committee. She was wrong.

Click to expand...

The House report was wrong as well. The Senate Intelligence Committee was more concise and accurate.

redleghunter said:

Yes of course not as it was called the Russian Interference of the 2016 elections.

Click to expand...

Then don't throw it out there as if being proof of Ukrainian involvement.

redleghunter said:

Well here we go again. The accusations of Trump being a Russian agent in direct contact and collusion with Russia and Putin was proved false in the Mueller Report.

Click to expand...

Yep, here we go again. A right winger makes a false claim after reading into what a person writes. Imagine that. There was not a single inference in my post that any logical person could have infer that Trump was a Russian agent. But, facts have shown that Trump was the main beneficiary of Russian interference during the election.

redleghunter said:

Once again the "hoax" is the Steele dossier and as mentioned the Mueller Report debunked those assertions and allegations.

Click to expand...

Once again, you are incorrect. Mueller did not debunk the Steele dossier. Some of the information has been proven incorrect while others were correct and others not verified.

redleghunter said:

I already posted the Politico article from January 2017 and it looks like you did not read it.

Click to expand...

Yes I did and that is where I got the info to which I made my response to you, which brings into question just how much of the article you actually read.

It says: "The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails..."

"There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the country — not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia — would render it unable to pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country’s election. And President Petro Poroshenko’s administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race."

redleghunter said:

The Mueller report did state there was no collusion with Russia or Russian agents.

Click to expand...

No it did not. If you believe so, provide the text from the Mueller report which stated just that and not some media site giving their narrative of it.

It did conclude Russia tried and Trump's campaign did not bite the bait.

Click to expand...

Trump campaign officials went to a meeting with a perceived Russian agent "because" they believed that they would receive dirt on Hillary Clinton. This is an act of collusion. After learning that the lawyer did not have what they came for, they left empty handed.

They took the bait. Bit hard into the sandwich but found no meat and left screaming, "Where's the beef, where's the beef?" LOL

redleghunter said:

Sondland spent the better half of the morning giving yes and no questions to events he later that day he said were his presumptions. “Everybody knows” testimonies are still hearsay and personal editorial. Might be interesting in an investigative news piece but to impeach and remove a president? No way. The new polls are showing independents are not buying this process.

Click to expand...

I realize there are things being said on one hand that are refuted on the other hand. That is because we're dealing with falsehood. As you probably know I study the semantics. Any reasoning based on falsehood will always end in a contradiction accordingly. Liars and those deceived by a lie, eventually end up talking out of both sides of their mouths so to speak, both refuting and asserting contrary claims.

Trump himself as well as Mulvaney have already said on record that Trump withheld the money for two reasons. This is not presumption, it's public record. In part it was said to have been withheld because Trump wanted other countries to pay more, even though Europe already pays far more than we do. Meanwhile there has not been any effort to negotiate for more funding by the E.U. to point to, nor would withholding the money even further that cause. It therefore only punishes Ukraine which the President supposedly cares about seeking more funds for. That's all a contradiction in reasoning according to the semantics.

The other reason which was publicly stated, was due to what Trump called "corruption" in Ukraine. This corruption has only now been elaborated upon in terms that point to both Ukraine's supposed interference in the 2016 election, Burisma/Biden. This reason given, actually undercuts the reasoning that Trump wants other countries to contribute more money since he is at the same time stating that our security aid is being withheld because of concerns over "corruption" in Ukraine. That's another contradiction according to the semantics.

On one occasion Trump stated to reporters, "Let me just tell you — let me just tell you. What Biden did was wrong". He was then immediately asked by one reporter what he said to Zelensky about Joe Biden and his son. Trump then responded, "What we are doing is we want honesty. We're supporting a country; we want to make sure that country is honest. It's very important to talk about corruption. If you don't talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?”. That statement indicates a clear sentiment that the money was withheld for the corruption he connected to the need to investigate Burisma/Biden. There's nothing presumptuous about any of this that I have put forth. It's just what the semantics prove.

Unlike Nunes and some others, I found Republican congressman Turner's questioning through out the past two weeks to be more thought out and without an obvious prejudice. I'm not surprised that he got Sondland to say he "presumed" that the security aide was being withheld because Trump wanted the public statement concerning a commitment to the investigations. After all, Sondland seems to be following Giuliani's lead and we have no record of what Giuliani might have said about it. Sondland appears to not understand that the criminal mind always talks in code, so if caught they can then claim the guy that was taking the orders misunderstood. That's how you create a fall guy for when things go wrong. Trump almost always talks in nuances which is why so many people can't see when he's lying. Nonetheless, it doesn't make Sondland's presumption wrong in what he assumed was being asked by the President.

We know Trump wanted the investigations, and we know he called it looking into "corruption", and we know he withheld the money because he was concerned about looking into corruption in Ukraine, meaning crowdstrike/the 2016 elections, Burisma/Biden.

I don't care what the polls show since Truth is not founded on people's votes. But I will tell you that it doesn't even matter what Trump did/does when it comes to the Trump loyalist. I study psychological manipulation as well as semantics, and those who are blaming the Democrats for the Mueller investigation and now the impeachment inquiry, would require some one on one therapy to have them see reality.

Yarddog said:

Then provide the direct quotes where Nunes says that the Russian election interference was not a hoax but only the Steele dossier was.

Click to expand...

Watch the full testimony and actually read what I'm writing. It has something to do with the House intel committee report on Russian interference which I've presented several times. Nunes and Jordan every day addressed the hoax narrative of Schiff since January 2017 in which Schiff was drawing from the Steele dossier. As a matter of fact all the media outlets have followed the Steele dossier as 'fact' since day one. If you are a believer in that narrative, there's little hope you will see the difference between Russian emails, Facebook ads, server hacks and the Steele dossier. You would be reading all of this from the narrative of HRC/DNC paid for Steele dossier lens and not see there are distinctions as the what the GOP House intel report findings. You would also see that even the Steele dossier itself, bought by HRC/DNC was from research out of the Ukraine. That is where Fusion GPS started before they hired a foreign spy to contact directly Russian officials.

Yarddog said:

No it did not. If you believe so, provide the text from the Mueller report which stated just that and not some media site giving their narrative of it.

Click to expand...

You believe we would be talking about military aid to Ukraine if the Mueller report cited Trump Russian collusion? The report discredited the Steele dossier. The Mueller report said Russia tried but the Trump campaign did not bite. You are convinced it to be true because of the Steele dossier. Until you come to the same conclusion Mueller and Dr Hill came to on the Steele dossier, you will not be able to see the distinctions.