Rachel Maddow to the rescue!

[Matthew Ellard]

If it is true that the Russians interfered in the American elections then why is it that the intelligence community only found out about it after Clinton lost?

They didn't. There is a difference between obtaining information and making a case for prosecution.

I think what is happening now is that the Russians are very slowly feeding (leaking) information to USA agencies to maximise the disruption to USA government. That's why Kislyak's report about Kushner establishing a back channel went through a clear channel, the NSA could read, while other Kislyak communications didn't.

That's why Putin waited till a couple weeks ago to say "It may have been patriotic Russian hackers" to make everyone jump up & down again.

Anyhow it is not Putin that is doing all of this. It is more probably Sergey Naryshkin advising the Security Council of the Russian Federation.

[Tom Palven]

If it is true that the Russians interfered in the American elections then why is it that the intelligence community only found out about it after Clinton lost?

[color=#000080]

They didn't. There is a difference between obtaining information and making a case for prosecution.

Are Russians accused of providing phony "leaks" in an effort to discredit Clinton? Which leaks were these? Wasn't it Trump that the Russians were supposedly blackmailing with phony stories about sex parties almost reminiscent of the phony CIA stories about Saddam Hussein's son's "rape rooms," (as if guys with harems needed "rape rooms".)

What exactly did some Russians do that cost Hillary the election? Where were votes lost due to them? After all, nobody disputes that she won the popular vote.

[scrmbldggs]

Almost nobody disputes that...



(Not surprising that he also seems to say all these voters are illegal. )

[Tom Palven]

This smacks of the kind of banana republic that has Dr. Mohammed Morsi in prison in Egypt after the military coup of his democratically-elected parliament.

All kinds of US officials and their staffs talk to all kinds of officials and businessmen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and about every other country in the world about arms deals and other business ventures, and yet the Deep State/MSM singles out Russia with a bizarre conspiracy while extremely credible independent reporters and computer experts like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Eric Margolis, Debbie Lusignan, John McAfee, Edward Snowden, Max Keiser, Stacy Herbert, and Julian Assange say that there is no evidence that the Russians helped defeat Hillary.

[Matthew Ellard]

Are Russians accused of providing phony "leaks" in an effort to discredit Clinton? Which leaks were these?

The Democrat private email leaks.

Tom? Are you aware that President Obama briefed Trump about Russian interference before Trump took office? The CIA and FBI were already aware. All that is happening, now, is that more information is being gathered now to allow for prosecution.

What exactly did some Russians do that cost Hillary the election?

I have said this ten times and you are still not getting it. The Security Council of the Russian Federation wanted to disrupt USA elections as payback for USA interference in Ukraine, The Baltic states and other matters. The Russians did not expect Trump to win the election. The moment Trump won, the Russians "reset" and started a new campaign to further disrupt the relationships between the CIA, FBI, NSA, the Whitehouse and the public. It is the Russians who will now drag this out to maintain confusion.

The only new bit is the UK leaving the EC. The EC will be tempted to increase trade with Russia. This is Russia's simple aim. You are probably unaware that Nigel Farage (UKIP) is now an FBI person of interest. The new question is if the Russians simultaneously assisted UKIP.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... and-russia

[Matthew Ellard]

Wasn't it Trump that the Russians were supposedly blackmailing with phony stories about sex parties

A respected former British intelligence officer said he had strong reason to believe that Trump paid prostitutes to piss on a bed that Obama slept in, in Moscow.

I don't believe it myself. You would have to pay a cleaning bill for beds and that would leave too obvious a paper trail. The other thing is that such an event would be a "trophy activity" meaning, Trump would only have done it if he could tell people about it.

[Tom Palven]

Wasn't it Trump that the Russians were supposedly blackmailing with phony stories about sex parties

[color=#000080] A respected former British intelligence officer said he had strong reason to believe ...

I'm also more than a bit incredulous.

[Matthew Ellard]

I'm also more than a bit incredulous.

Yep. It doesn't make any sense, even if was only to hold blackmail material, for the future, against Trump as a businessman. The world is getting used to "over the top" idiots who indulge in anything.

One of the good things that has changed in the world is the acceptance of homosexuality as a normal part of social behaviour. You can't be blackmailed for being gay anymore,

Yuri Andropov was the chairman of the KGB and he said that the end of Communism would be very expensive for the KGB because your would no longer have people working for them for free for ideological reasons. That meant the KGB had to bribe foreign information sources like everyone else.

[TJrandom]

Just for clarity here Flash, but by this you do mean to stand together with the Putin/Trump cabal...

Just for clarity, TJ, Is standing together with the neocon warmonger/MIC /secret police /Associated Press cabal a source of pride?

For the Trump/Putin cabal, I suspect it is.

[Flash]

Matthew Ellard wrote:

Are you aware that President Obama briefed Trump about Russian interference before Trump took office? The CIA and FBI were already aware. All that is happening, now, is that more information is being gathered now to allow for prosecution.

Really? Did Obama and Trump send you an email to brief you on the matter? How do you know about it? Oh I get it, you got it from the lying corporate media just like JO along with other "reliable" news, like that Hillary was a shoo in for the presidency.
Tom Palven wrote:

What exactly did some Russians do that cost Hillary the election?

Matthew Ellard wrote:

I have said this ten times and you are still not getting it. The Security Council of the Russian Federation wanted to disrupt USA elections as payback for USA interference in Ukraine, The Baltic states and other matters. The Russians did not expect Trump to win the election. The moment Trump won, the Russians "reset" and started a new campaign to further disrupt the relationships between the CIA, FBI, NSA, the Whitehouse and the public. It is the Russians who will now drag this out to maintain confusion.

Ellard, you are spinning this idiotic conspiracy theory that makes the largest and best funded intelligence complex on the planet looking like incompetent fools. Despite having budgets larger than the entire Russian military the poor darlings can't even assure the fairness and safety of the American elections? So tell us, what the {!#%@} are they good for?

Not only that but you are saying that they won't even be able to prevent future interference in American politics? And they allow the Russians to disrupt the loving relationship between CIA, FBI, NSA, the White House and the trusting American public. I am impressed. These Russians must be the supermen. They seem to run the rings around all Western intel agencies. Why? Even the president of the Limey disunited kingdom and the president of the republic of thousand stinky cheeses thought so. That's what I call a conspiracy theory.

I will add some spice to it. My confidential sources (don't ask, it could be the Russians) tell me that the old rubber underpants John McCain is really a Russian Manchurian candidate. He only pretends to hate the Russians. Sad but true and confirmed by the confidential sources in the NSA or CIA or FBI, and NBC, and CNN and Walmart and the Dollar Stores or something.

The only new bit is the UK leaving the EC. The EC will be tempted to increase trade with Russia. This is Russia's simple aim. You are probably unaware that Nigel Farage (UKIP) is now an FBI person of interest. The new question is if the Russians simultaneously assisted UKIP.

Oh {!#%@}! There's more to your conspiracy tale. You are implying that Brexit was caused the Russians? And Nigel Farage is a Russian agent and UKIP is a {!#%@} Russian funded organization?

You stopped taking your pills again.

And let me tell you, everybody on the planet is a person of interest for the seventeen intelligence agencies in the US.

[TJrandom]

Some good points there - particularly on the subversion of the voting process, Citizens United included, which has turned the US into an autocracy.

But the US intelligence agencies knew well in advance of Hillarys` loss. Fortunately (?) they are not tasked with resolution, just information gathering and analysis. It was up to the military and maybe the CIA to take action, based upon the authority of congress and the executive branch.

[Flash]

TJrandom wrote:

But the US intelligence agencies knew well in advance of Hillarys` loss. Fortunately (?) they are not tasked with resolution, just information gathering and analysis. It was up to the military and maybe the CIA to take action, based upon the authority of congress and the executive branch.

That's how it was supposed to work in theory. But nowdays CIA has morphed into an assassination, regime change and propaganda agency. They have heir own army, air force, bombing drones and even black prisons. Not bad for an agency which initially was supposed to gather intelligence.
And FBI ever since Hoover has been in the business of king making in America, blackmail and character assassination. Comey for example was very busy framing crazy, homeless, angry men as terrorists to improve his terrorism fighting resume.

[Matthew Ellard]

Really? Did Obama and Trump send you an email to brief you on the matter?

It was in every paper in the world you complete moron.

Try the Telegraph. You can look at the pictures.
"Barack Obama warned Donald Trump against hiring Michael Flynn in their first meeting after election"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05 ... ael-flynn/

I now realise that you are just really stupid and don't know anything.

How do you know about it?

Reading. You should "give it a go" one day.

Ellard, you are spinning this idiotic conspiracy theory that makes the largest and best funded intelligence complex on the planet looking like incompetent fools.

Gosh Flash Are you telling me Aldrich Ames the Russian spy who ran the CIA counter Soviet department wasn't a Russian spy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich_Ames

Give up Flash. You really don't know anything. You make Gorgeous look knowledgeable and intelligent..

[Anomaly]

So with all this evidence a prosecution is inevitable?

[Tom Palven]

So with all this evidence a prosecution is inevitable?

What evidence?

Evidence of what?

Hillary won the popular vote despite a crappy campaign and opposition from the Sanders camp.

The evidence of wrongdoing provided here so far is an assertion from Matthew that "A respected former British intelligence officer said that he had strong reason to believe that Trump paid prostitutes to piss on a bed that Obama slept in, in Moscow."

Jesus, take me home.

[Anomaly]

Jesus, take me home.

I am only questioning what is going on. I see people claim there being evidence, so what must follow is prosecution with presentation of such evidence.
That is if evidence of something actually exists.

Do not forget, Trump gets TWO SCOOPS......

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Anomaly: surely any reflection on your own knowledge base/experience in life will immediately reveal that more than some evidence being present is required before prosecutions are undertaken.

Common sense?

[Anomaly]

Anomaly: surely any reflection on your own knowledge base/experience in life will immediately reveal that more than some evidence being present is required before prosecutions are undertaken.

Common sense?

If there is no evidence to support prosecution and prove guilt, there is not much of a case to argue is there?

[Tom Palven]

If there is no evidence to support prosecution and prove guilt, there is not much of a case to argue is there?

Trump hiring people to piss on a mattress might be hard to prove and might not even be a federal case.

Now, if there is video of Trump purposely pissing on a mattress himself, or tearing the tag off, that would be something different altogether.

[JO 753]

Lets not get into name calling agen.

I hav a topic in the Firefly Fan Forum about the evidens. I'm sure there are more consise collectionz out there, but its accumulating so fast that its hard to keep up. The Evidens

There are memberz there who may be actual Russian social media operativz! Hard to tell, usually, kuz sum peepl just get sucked into misinformation propaganda networks and cant tell the fake newz from the real newz. I assume thats wuts going on with you guyz, Tom and Flash.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Anomaly: surely any reflection on your own knowledge base/experience in life will immediately reveal that more than some evidence being present is required before prosecutions are undertaken.

Common sense?

If there is no evidence to support prosecution and prove guilt, there is not much of a case to argue is there?

Keep at it. Only a few more steps.......................

[Tom Palven]

I hav a topic in the Firefly Fan Forum about the evidens. I'm sure there are more conside collectionz out there, but its accumulating so fast that its hard to keep up. The Evidens

I looked at The Evidens and didn't see any Jo.

All I saw were some allegations which wouldn't be proof of wrong-doing, even if true (IMHO).

[scrmbldggs]

But TWO SCOOPS!! (Thanks Anomaly, I needed that. )

[TJrandom]

I hav a topic in the Firefly Fan Forum about the evidens. I'm sure there are more conside collectionz out there, but its accumulating so fast that its hard to keep up. The Evidens

I looked at The Evidens and didn't see any Jo.

All I saw were some allegations which wouldn't be proof of wrong-doing, even if true (IMHO).

Tom, may I ask how you have been able to look at the evidence? Held by the FBI? By one of the congressional committees? By the special prosecutor? Some other source?

[JO 753]

I assume you skipped the opening post there, Tom, otherwize you woudnt hav ritn that.

unless youre teezing me!

[Anomaly]

Tom, may I ask how you have been able to look at the evidence? Held by the FBI? By one of the congressional committees? By the special prosecutor? Some other source?

Exactly. How can evidence no one have seen be interpreted one way or the other. I guess if there is evidence of foul play there will be a prosecution. If there is no evidence of foul play there will be no prosecution. My curiosity comes from the claims of collusion between Trump and Putin. Collusion would be a unprecedented crime, and allegations of such would be a very serious matter. My impression from how the media spins it, is that there have been such collusion with evidence to prove it.

Russian attempts to influence the geopolitical sphere with their own interests in mind is no revelation. A major player on the world stage that acts differently would be more surprising. Not that I should lecture Americans about influencing the geopolitical sphere....
Hell... My country act no differently. Only we put our money and effort into things like the Clinton campaign, because it serves our interests.

That is why the allegations of collusion interests me. If there is evidence prosecution becomes inevitable. Without a prosecution all that is left are allegations without proof.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

The "evidence" of collusion is that in fact the Russians or their fellow enthusiasts did interfere in the election and Trump won all while Trump and close associations met repeatedly with Rusian Agents and variously lied about such meetings.

proof?==No.

Evidence?? Directly--no. Indirectly--yes.

[Flash]

Matthew Ellard wrote:

It was in every paper in the world you complete moron.

There are lots of things in papers in the world. News about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the good terrorists in Syria, the Russian collusion with Trump, the freedom and democracy in the West... But only the real moron believes them all.

Try the Telegraph. You can look at the pictures...

I now realise that you are just really stupid and don't know anything...

Reading. You should "give it a go" one day...

Give up Flash. You really don't know anything. You make Gorgeous look knowledgeable and intelligent..

Oh that corporate rag The Telegraph is the source of your vast knowledge about the world. Try The Daily Mail, for balance and truth and amusement too.

And then you had your epiphany. Very unusual for someone who can't think straight. What a great explosion of your grey matter it must have been. The sudden Flash of consciousness, an eruption of an innate and sudden realization that I am really stupid.

Did you fall on your head or something? And why now? I mean, if I am really stupid then it has had to be a permanent condition. I must have been stupid before. It's not like syphilis which you get somewhere then cure it with penicillin only to acquire it again through, as you subsequently tell everybody, a careless use of the toilet seat in a public toilet, you know?

But... who am I to criticize your nauseous, vulgar and frankly boring attacks on people like Norma, Gorgeous and me. To me you are still my Internet hero who encourages me to read (probably The Telegraph) and to trust the Deep State and make other people on this forum, like Gorgeous for example, look spectacular.

I appreciate that, with the warmest regards, your best friend you'll ever have, Flash.

[Tom Palven]

I hav a topic in the Firefly Fan Forum about the evidens. I'm sure there are more conside collectionz out there, but its accumulating so fast that its hard to keep up. The Evidens

I looked at The Evidens and didn't see any Jo.

All I saw were some allegations which wouldn't be proof of wrong-doing, even if true (IMHO).

Tom, may I ask how you have been able to look at the evidence? Held by the FBI? By one of the congressional committees? By the special prosecutor? Some other source?

Yes, some other source.

I was referring to The Evidens that JO provided on his link.

Did you find it compelling?

[Matthew Ellard]

It was in every paper in the world you complete moron.

There are lots of things in papers in the world.

....and you missed it? So is that my fault or your lack of basic knowledge. You simply didn't know that the CIA and FBI were already working on Russian interference in the forthcoming USA election.

But... who am I to criticize your .........

Obviously you are no one and your comments are insignificant. If you don't know basic facts about the current Russian interference in the past USA election and are making uneducated posts, on that topic on a skeptic forum, you are simply imitating Gorgeous.

[Matthew Ellard]

So with all this evidence a prosecution is inevitable?

I never said a prosecution is inevitable. I said there is a difference between gathering information (intelligence and facts) )and preparing a case for prosecution (court). The FBI, NSA, CIA and other agencies will supply the Attorney General's office with the facts and the Attorney General's office will make decisions if that evidence can be presented in court and could successfully lead to a prosecution. That is exactly what is happening.

However the CIA and FBI are not bound to only act on evidence that is acceptable in court. Nor is any police force required to only act on evidence acceptable to a court. They enter into activities according to their specific charter.

[Flash]

JO753 wrote:

There are memberz there who may be actual Russian social media operativz! Hard to tell, usually, kuz sum peepl just get sucked into misinformation propaganda networks and cant tell the fake newz from the real newz. I assume thats wuts going on with you guyz, Tom and Flash.

The "Russian social media operativz!" Tom and Flash? You really watch too much TV JO. You have skipped the "Putin's useful idiots" stage and went strait to your; Putin's "operativz" just like Trump, his entire family, even some American generals, all those bloggers and journalists like Thom Hartmann, Eric Margolis, Matt Taibibi, Robert Fisk, Paul Craig Roberts, The Bionic Mosquito, James Petras, The Saker, Sam Sacks, Tom Engelhardt, Paul Street...and many many more.

And you think it is us who can't tell the difference between the real news and fake news? What's in the water in those fly over states where you've been your entire life, my country right or wrong magic powder?

I am sure you are voicing your honest opinion on the matter JO and I appreciate absence of insults. I don't know Tom personally by judging from his posts he is an intelligent, well read guy who's been around (I mean traveled, saw a bit of the world) and a patriot who doesn't want his country to waste into an oppressive, fascist empire that exports nothing but death and destruction into the world.

And I... I am Flash the Martian operative (not Putin's) who works tirelessly to subjugate this planet to the Martian overlords. That's all you need to know for now JO. Cheerio from Flash.

[Matthew Ellard]

Are Russians accused of providing phony "leaks" in an effort to discredit Clinton? Which leaks were these?

The leaks Putin said were possibly made by patriotic Russian hackers and supplied to wikileaks, which the NSA say were definitely made by Russians with help of GRU signals intelligence.

Wasn't it Trump that the Russians were supposedly blackmailing with phony stories about sex parties almost reminiscent of the phony CIA stories about Saddam Hussein's son's "rape rooms," (as if guys with harems needed "rape rooms".)

No. A British former intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, stated to the FBI's counter Russian department in 2015, that he was informed that the SVR has video of Trump paying prostitutes to piss on the bed that Obama slept in, in Moscow. This is a separate matter and is dubious.

[Matthew Ellard]

I wish people would stop claiming Putin, the individual, is behind everything. Putin is the President of the Russian Federation and has to prepare for an election in 2018. He is one member of the Security Council of the Russian Federation. The Security Council in 2016 probably had many issues on the agenda and one issue was disruption of the USA, UK and other anti-Russian nation's elections. It probably wasn't even a priority. The war in Ukraine was probably more pressing as it was tied to sanctions. They were probably as surprised as every one else when Trump won. They are simply getting more mileage out of Trump's victory.

Does anyone here think Trump is personally handling USA intelligence activities against Russia and China? No? So why claim that Putin is personally handling all Russian intelligence activities about the USA?

People are mistakenly applying Putin's own personality traits to a matter that Putin may have no hand's on, day to day role. This makes the matter harder to asses and is a distraction.

[JO 753]

Az I understand it, Matt, Russia iz an oligarky and Putin iz the top oligark.

Sins the US iz nearly an oligarky and China may be at about the same level, I'm starting to wonder if thats the real war going on now - the world'z oligarks working together to consolidate their power.

Democrasy iz barely alive here and the GoPs are working hard to snuff it out. In Russia and many other countryz with electionz, its a total sham.

[JO 753]

The "Russian social media operativz!" Tom and Flash?

No. Maybe wut I rote wuz ambiguous, but wut I ment iz that you 2 hav been reading too much propaganda.

[Matthew Ellard]

Az I understand it, Matt, Russia iz an oligarky and Putin iz the top oligark.

You better tell the Communist party of Russia Liberal democrat Party of Russia as they both still hold 14% of seats, each in the Duma. United Russia (Putin's party only has a 4% majority to stand on its own without forming a coalition. That's why Putin is on the campaign trail for 2018.

As I said before, The Security Counsel of the Russian Federation is probably more concerned about Ukraine. Russia took back Crimea and west Ukraine which it gave to Ukraine in the 1950's. That's potentially 20,000,000 new voters joining the Russian Federal election in future years. (Russia's population reduced to 175 million from 365 million in the soviet union when Russia broke up. )

It may have occurred to some people here that the Russians are still worried about the USA interfering in the Russian Federal elections as it did when Boris Yeltsin was going to his election.

The Russians are also worried at the moment because they don't have an effective army or navy. as they are converting from a conscript army to a professional army.

This is why the Russians are running all these overseas distractions, like interfering in the USA political process. When was the last time you thought about Donetsk or the Crimea? (think about it)

Democrasy iz barely alive here and the GoPs are working hard to snuff it out.

Well the USA is still a pretty good working democratic republic and still has a lot to offer the world as a partner. Like any good system it needs continual maintenance.

Here is your's truly giving a rousing speech to non-existent workers in a communist cafe in Moscow about serving cold coffee in very bad Russian..

Moscow Communist cafe.jpg

[Nikki Nyx]

Well the USA is still a pretty good working democratic republic

By what metric? Not by the USA's metric. Our federal government, when it monitors foreign elections, uses as its standard a +/-2% discrepancy between unaltered exit polls and vote tallies. Any discrepancy larger than 2% is considered to be a fraudulent election. In last year's Democratic primary, more than 20 states showed a +2% discrepancy, from Connecticut at 2.2% to Arizona at 35.7%. Every single discrepancy was in Hillary Clinton's favor, and the overwhelming majority of these discrepancies changed the outcomes of the elections in those states. Interestingly, the locations where the discrepancies occurred were always places that used voting machines, and never places that used paper ballots.

And that's only one issue. Here's another. There is no national standard for voter registration or for voting. Some states hold caucuses, where votes are recorded by someone counting how many hands are raised. Others use paper ballots that are hand-counted or machine-counted. Still others use voting machines with software that's horribly outdated and easily hacked. In some states, you must be registered to a particular Party to vote in that Party's primary. In my state, you can be unaffiliated and vote in either primary.

Yet another... The Democratic and Republican parties have a stranglehold on the political process, to the extent that it's impossible for any other Party to make headway at the federal level. They control the debates and set the rules for them, and they always exclude third parties from the conversation.

Still more... Democratic super delegates who get to vote twice: once as a private citizen, and once because of the special status they've been given. Elected representatives who ignore the will of their constituents in favor of their personal opinions. The fact that the winner-take-all system means that it's almost never a majority of the population that elects any politician.

I'm not seeing "pretty good" in any of this.

[Tom Palven]

The Little Witch Hunt that Could.

David Stockman on MSM spin:
http://original.antiwar.com/David_Stock ... -big-coup/

[TJrandom]

I hav a topic in the Firefly Fan Forum about the evidens. I'm sure there are more conside collectionz out there, but its accumulating so fast that its hard to keep up. The Evidens

I looked at The Evidens and didn't see any Jo.

All I saw were some allegations which wouldn't be proof of wrong-doing, even if true (IMHO).

Tom, may I ask how you have been able to look at the evidence? Held by the FBI? By one of the congressional committees? By the special prosecutor? Some other source?

Yes, some other source.

I was referring to The Evidens that JO provided on his link.

Did you find it compelling?

Thanks Tom – And nope, though compelling isn`t what I am looking for. Rather evidence presented from the official investigations and if warranted by their judgement, the results of a prosecution. I am all for the rule of law.