Scott75 Posted January 6 Report Posted January 6 (edited) Interesting article just published on Aaron Mate's substack today. For those who haven't heard of Aaron Mate, here's his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Maté Quoting the introduction to Aaron Maté's article below: ** FBI still hiding key Russiagate details, newly released document shows In May 2017, the FBI opened an unprecedented counterintelligence probe of President Trump as an agent of Russia. Nearly 8 years later, the FBI continues to conceal the basis for that investigation. Aaron Maté Jan 06, 2025 As Donald Trump re-enters the White House on a pledge to end national security state overreach, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is still hiding critical details on the Russia conspiracy investigation that engulfed his first term. In response to a Freedom of Information request that I filed in August 2022, the FBI on December 31, more than two years later, released a heavily redacted copy of the document that opened an explosive and unprecedented counterintelligence probe of the sitting president as an agent of the Russian government. The Electronic Communication, dated May 16, 2017, claimed to have an “articulable factual basis” to suspect that Trump “wittingly or unwittingly” was illegally acting on behalf of Russia, and accordingly posing “threats to the national security of the United States.” The FBI’s “goal,” it added, was “to determine if President Trump is or was directed by, controlled by, and/or coordinated activities with, the Russian Federation.” It additionally sought to uncover whether Trump and unnamed “others” obstructed “any associated FBI investigation” – a reference to Crossfire Hurricane, the initial FBI inquiry into the Trump campaign’s suspected cooperation with an alleged Russian interference plot in the 2016 election. While Crossfire Hurricane, which was formally opened on July 31, 2016, had by that point focused on members of Trump’s orbit, the May 2017 probe was specifically targeted at the president himself during his fourth month in office. The investigation of Trump was undertaken at the behest of then-acting FBI director Andrew McCabe, one week after Trump had fired his former boss and mentor, James B. Comey. According to the declassified document, McCabe’s decision was approved by FBI Assistant Director Bill Priestap, who had also signed off on the opening of Crossfire Hurricane; and Jim Baker, the FBI general counsel. Baker was a longtime friend of Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, and a key figure in the dissemination of Clinton-funded disinformation to the FBI that falsely tied Trump to Russia. In his FBI role, Baker personally circulated the conspiracy theory, manufactured by “researchers” working with the Clinton campaign, that the Trump campaign and Russia were communicating via a secret server. After leaving the FBI, Baker served as deputy general counsel at Twitter, where he backed the company’s censorship of reporting on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, based on yet another conspiracy theory that the laptop files were Russian disinformation. ** Full article: https://www.aaronmate.net/p/fbi-still-hiding-key-russiagate-details?publication_id=100118&post_id=154280509&isFreemail=true&r=z34xz&triedRedirect=true Edited January 6 by Scott75 Added information Quote
robosmith Posted January 6 Report Posted January 6 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Scott75 said: Interesting article just published on Aaron Mate's substack today. For those who haven't heard of Aaron Mate, here's his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Maté Quoting the introduction to Aaron Maté's article below: ** FBI still hiding key Russiagate details, newly released document shows In May 2017, the FBI opened an unprecedented counterintelligence probe of President Trump as an agent of Russia. Nearly 8 years later, the FBI continues to conceal the basis for that investigation. Aaron Maté Jan 06, 2025 As Donald Trump re-enters the White House on a pledge to end national security state overreach, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is still hiding critical details on the Russia conspiracy investigation that engulfed his first term. In response to a Freedom of Information request that I filed in August 2022, the FBI on December 31, more than two years later, released a heavily redacted copy of the document that opened an explosive and unprecedented counterintelligence probe of the sitting president as an agent of the Russian government. The Electronic Communication, dated May 16, 2017, claimed to have an “articulable factual basis” to suspect that Trump “wittingly or unwittingly” was illegally acting on behalf of Russia, and accordingly posing “threats to the national security of the United States.” The FBI’s “goal,” it added, was “to determine if President Trump is or was directed by, controlled by, and/or coordinated activities with, the Russian Federation.” It additionally sought to uncover whether Trump and unnamed “others” obstructed “any associated FBI investigation” – a reference to Crossfire Hurricane, the initial FBI inquiry into the Trump campaign’s suspected cooperation with an alleged Russian interference plot in the 2016 election. While Crossfire Hurricane, which was formally opened on July 31, 2016, had by that point focused on members of Trump’s orbit, the May 2017 probe was specifically targeted at the president himself during his fourth month in office. The investigation of Trump was undertaken at the behest of then-acting FBI director Andrew McCabe, one week after Trump had fired his former boss and mentor, James B. Comey. According to the declassified document, McCabe’s decision was approved by FBI Assistant Director Bill Priestap, who had also signed off on the opening of Crossfire Hurricane; and Jim Baker, the FBI general counsel. Baker was a longtime friend of Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, and a key figure in the dissemination of Clinton-funded disinformation to the FBI that falsely tied Trump to Russia. In his FBI role, Baker personally circulated the conspiracy theory, manufactured by “researchers” working with the Clinton campaign, that the Trump campaign and Russia were communicating via a secret server. After leaving the FBI, Baker served as deputy general counsel at Twitter, where he backed the company’s censorship of reporting on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, based on yet another conspiracy theory that the laptop files were Russian disinformation. ** Full article: https://www.aaronmate.net/p/fbi-still-hiding-key-russiagate-details?publication_id=100118&post_id=154280509&isFreemail=true&r=z34xz&triedRedirect=true The basis for investigating Trump is thoroughly described in the Republican led Senate Intel Committee investigation on Russian Interference. His campaign manager (for free) Manafort had a long history of working for Putin STOOGES and continued to do so during the campaign. He was caught distributing private campaign polling data to Russian agent Kilimnik among other collusion activities. (u)report Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (.gov) https://www.intelligence.senate.gov › documents PDF Aug 18, 2020 — ... RUSSIAN ACTIVE MEASURES CAMPAIGNS AND INTERFERENCE. IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION. VOLUME 5: COUNTERINTELLIGENCE THREATS AND. VULNERABILITIES. Page ... 966 pages Edited January 6 by robosmith Quote
WestCanMan Posted January 6 Report Posted January 6 McCabe’s decision was approved by FBI Assistant Director Bill Priestap, who had also signed off on the opening of Crossfire Hurricane; and Jim Baker, the FBI general counsel. Baker was a longtime friend of Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, So, when Sussman brought the bogus dossier to the FBI and "failed to disclose that he was acting as Hillary's counsel, and that the intel came from her", Baker was already aware of that anyways. That actually jives with the reason Sussman wasn't convicted, the FBI said that they were already aware of his relationship with Hillary. and a key figure in the dissemination of Clinton-funded disinformation to the FBI that falsely tied Trump to Russia. Nice. In his FBI role, Baker personally circulated the conspiracy theory, manufactured by “researchers” working with the Clinton campaign, that the Trump campaign and Russia were communicating via a secret server. AKA, Baker leaked to the media for his friend, Michael Sussman, to help Hillary. After leaving the FBI, Baker served as deputy general counsel at Twitter, The perfect place for such a snake in the grass. where he backed the company’s censorship of reporting on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, Of course he did, but he didn't have any say in that. Twitter was part of TNI, and all the members of TNI were together on all the Russian collusion and Covid-1938 disinformation campaigns. based on yet another conspiracy theory that the laptop files were Russian disinformation. You spelled "Russian disinformation" wrong. It's: "Russian disinformation". 2 Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. "If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"
WestCanMan Posted January 6 Report Posted January 6 20 minutes ago, robosmith said: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (.gov) https://www.intelligence.senate.gov › documents PDF Aug 18, 2020 — ... RUSSIAN ACTIVE MEASURES CAMPAIGNS AND INTERFERENCE. IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION. VOLUME 5: COUNTERINTELLIGENCE THREATS AND. VULNERABILITIES. Page ... 966 pages There's no mention in there of the fact that the FBI members who compiled all that info for the select committee were intensely biased, in addition to being serial liars and felons. It's just really expensive birdcage liner. 1 Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. "If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"
robosmith Posted January 6 Report Posted January 6 (edited) 44 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: McCabe’s decision was approved by FBI Assistant Director Bill Priestap, who had also signed off on the opening of Crossfire Hurricane; and Jim Baker, the FBI general counsel. Baker was a longtime friend of Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, So, when Sussman brought the bogus dossier to the FBI and "failed to disclose that he was acting as Hillary's counsel, and that the intel came from her", Baker was already aware of that anyways. That actually jives with the reason Sussman wasn't convicted, the FBI said that they were already aware of his relationship with Hillary. and a key figure in the dissemination of Clinton-funded disinformation to the FBI that falsely tied Trump to Russia. Nice. In his FBI role, Baker personally circulated the conspiracy theory, manufactured by “researchers” working with the Clinton campaign, that the Trump campaign and Russia were communicating via a secret server. AKA, Baker leaked to the media for his friend, Michael Sussman, to help Hillary. After leaving the FBI, Baker served as deputy general counsel at Twitter, The perfect place for such a snake in the grass. where he backed the company’s censorship of reporting on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, Of course he did, but he didn't have any say in that. Twitter was part of TNI, and all the members of TNI were together on all the Russian collusion and Covid-1938 disinformation campaigns. based on yet another conspiracy theory that the laptop files were Russian disinformation. Trump had Manafort do the collusion, like all good mob bosses who try to keep their HANDS CLEAN. Of course Trump dangled a pardon to Manafort to keep him from flipping and it worked at least most of the time. 44 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: You spelled "Russian disinformation" wrong. It's: "Russian disinformation". All ^this spinning around has made you dizzy and confused. 21 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: There's no mention in there of the fact that the FBI members who compiled all that info for the select committee were intensely biased, in addition to being serial liars and felons. It's just really expensive birdcage liner. It was APPROVED by the Senate, and that's far STRONGER than ANYTHING you've got. Edited January 6 by robosmith Quote
NAME REMOVED Posted January 6 Report Posted January 6 1 hour ago, robosmith said: The basis for investigating Trump is thoroughly described in the Republican led Senate Intel Committee investigation on Russian Interference. His campaign manager (for free) Manafort had a long history of working for Putin STOOGES and continued to do so during the campaign. He was caught distributing private campaign polling data to Russian agent Kilimnik among other collusion activities. (u)report Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (.gov) https://www.intelligence.senate.gov › documents PDF Aug 18, 2020 — ... RUSSIAN ACTIVE MEASURES CAMPAIGNS AND INTERFERENCE. IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION. VOLUME 5: COUNTERINTELLIGENCE THREATS AND. VULNERABILITIES. Page ... 966 pages People that have been compromised by Russia exist on social media, and even on this forum. I know of at least one member who is pushing pro-Kremlin narrative. 1 Quote
User Posted January 6 Report Posted January 6 18 minutes ago, robosmith said: Trump had Manafort do the collusion, like all good mob bosses who try to keep their HANDS CLEAN. There was no collusion. The Mueller report spelled this out. 4 Quote
Scott75 Posted January 6 Author Report Posted January 6 14 minutes ago, User said: There was no collusion. The Mueller report spelled this out. I'm not sure if they spelled it out, but I think that if they really had anything, they would have said so. Quote
WestCanMan Posted January 6 Report Posted January 6 44 minutes ago, robosmith said: Trump had Manafort do the collusion, There was no collusion, dummy. If Manafort colluded then that would mean there was evidence of collusion, which there wasn't. Quote Of course Trump dangled a pardon to Manafort to keep him from flipping and it worked at least most of the time. There was no "flipping" possible, because Manafort wasn't found guilty of collusion, on account of the fact that there was never any evidence of collusion found. Therefor Manafort had no evidence of collusion to give the FBI. Quote All ^this spinning around has made you dizzy and confused. There's no spinning, id10t. If the FBI found evidence they wouldn't have needed to lie to the FISA court all those times. Quote It was APPROVED by the Senate, and that's far STRONGER than ANYTHING you've got. The report with no evidence was approved by the senate. Yay. 1 Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. "If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"
WestCanMan Posted January 6 Report Posted January 6 46 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said: People that have been compromised by Russia exist on social media, and even on this forum. I know of at least one member who is pushing pro-Kremlin narrative. Liars and ret4rds like you are on this forum. "A GUY NAMED PAUL MANAFORT MIGHT HAVE TALKED TO A GUY WHO KNOWS A GUY WHO KNOWS A GUY THAT KNOWS PUTIN!!!!! Also, Joe Biden's son is business partners with Xi's right-hand man, and made $10M+ from him, but that's no big deal." - leftards. Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. "If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"
robosmith Posted January 6 Report Posted January 6 25 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: There was no collusion, dummy. If Manafort colluded then that would mean there was evidence of collusion, which there wasn't. There was no "flipping" possible, because Manafort wasn't found guilty of collusion, on account of the fact that there was never any evidence of collusion found. Therefor Manafort had no evidence of collusion to give the FBI. There's no spinning, id10t. If the FBI found evidence they wouldn't have needed to lie to the FISA court all those times. The report with no evidence was approved by the senate. Yay. The evidence is detailed in the report whether you admit it or not. 1 1 Quote
WestCanMan Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 37 minutes ago, robosmith said: The evidence is detailed in the report whether you admit it or not. There's actually no evidence at all in there, just claims. Do you know what the FBI's claims are worth regarding Russian collusion? You could read Rosemary Collyer's statement regarding that if you wanted to, but believe it or not, they're even worth less than yours, because you're just a known serial liar and they've actually been convicted of lying to a judge. Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. "If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"
Scott75 Posted January 7 Author Report Posted January 7 1 hour ago, WestCanMan said: There's actually no evidence at all in there, just claims. Do you know what the FBI's claims are worth regarding Russian collusion? You could read Rosemary Collyer's statement regarding that if you wanted to, but believe it or not, they're even worth less than yours, because you're just a known serial liar and they've actually been convicted of lying to a judge. I believe you're right regarding the FBI's claims, but I'd also like to point out that I haven't seen any evidence that robosmith has lied, by which I mean I haven't seen any evidence that he has tried to persuade anyone here of something that he himself doesn't believe to be true. Quote
robosmith Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 1 hour ago, WestCanMan said: There's actually no evidence at all in there, just claims. Do you know what the FBI's claims are worth regarding Russian collusion? You could read Rosemary Collyer's statement regarding that if you wanted to, but believe it or not, they're even worth less than yours, because you're just a known serial liar and they've actually been convicted of lying to a judge. The US Senate says YOU'RE WRONG. And frankly you have ZERO credibility here because you are an IGNORANT CANUCK only PRETENDING to know what's going on here. YOU only know half the story AT BEST. LMAO Quote
Legato Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 3 minutes ago, robosmith said: YOU only know half the story AT BEST. LMAO Surely that's better than 1/1024th 1 Quote
robosmith Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 4 minutes ago, Legato said: Surely that's better than 1/1024th How would you know? LMAO Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 I like how these guys still think there was a Russian connection. It's like they watched a Star Wars and believed it actually happened. 1 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
User Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 3 hours ago, Scott75 said: I'm not sure if they spelled it out, but I think that if they really had anything, they would have said so. No, it was literally spelled out. "We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." 2 hours ago, robosmith said: The evidence is detailed in the report whether you admit it or not. Keep hiding from me like the coward you are: "We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." 2 Quote
Legato Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 42 minutes ago, robosmith said: How would you know? LMAO Cos my name isn't smith. Quote
robosmith Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 18 minutes ago, Legato said: Cos my name isn't smith. So what? ^Means NOTHING. Quote
Scott75 Posted January 7 Author Report Posted January 7 (edited) 5 hours ago, User said: 9 hours ago, Scott75 said: 9 hours ago, User said: 10 hours ago, robosmith said: Trump had Manafort do the collusion, like all good mob bosses who try to keep their HANDS CLEAN. There was no collusion. The Mueller report spelled this out. I'm not sure if they spelled it out, but I think that if they really had anything, they would have said so. No, it was literally spelled out. "We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Your quote says that they didn't "establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election inteference activities". Left unsaid is that they didn't exonerate the Trump Campaign of doing this either. That being said, I've read about the "evidence" that was gathered against the Trump campaign. It's just bad and I strongly suspect that those who gathered it knew or at least suspected that it was bad, but gave it a pass anyway for political reasons. I've read another article from Aaron Mate that was published shortly after Russia's military operation in Ukraine began that provides a possible motive for giving this bad intelligence a pass. Quoting from the introduction and conclusion: ** On a warm October day in 2019, the eminent Russia studies professor Stephen F. Cohen and I sat down in Manhattan for what would be our last in-person interview (Cohen passed away in September 2020 at the age of 81). The House was gearing up to impeach Donald Trump for freezing weapons shipments to Ukraine while pressuring its government to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. The Beltway media was consumed with frenzy of a presidency in peril. But Professor Cohen, one of the leading Russia scholars in the United States, was concerned with what the impeachment spectacle in Washington meant for the long-running war between the US-backed Ukrainian government and Russian-backed rebels in the Donbas. At that point, Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky was just months into an upstart presidency that he had won on a pledge to end the Donbas conflict. Instead of supporting the Ukrainian leader’s peace mandate, Democrats in Congress were impeaching Trump for briefly impeding the flow of weapons that fueled the fight. As his Democratic allies now like to forget, President Obama refused to send these same weapons out of fear of prolonging the war and arming Nazis. By abandoning Obama’s policy, the Democrats, Cohen warned, threaten to sabotage peace and strengthen Ukraine’s far-right. “Zelensky ran as a peace candidate,” Cohen explained. “He won an enormous mandate to make peace. So, that means he has to negotiate with Vladimir Putin.” But there was a major obstacle. Ukrainian fascists “have said that they will remove and kill Zelensky if he continues along this line of negotiating with Putin… His life is being threatened literally by a quasi-fascist movement in Ukraine.” [snip] While claiming to profess concern for Ukrainian lives, NATO policymakers have made plain their disregard for diplomacy. Instead, as retired senior US diplomat Chas Freeman recently told me, they have pursued a policy of fighting Russia “to the last Ukrainian.” “Everything we are doing, rather than accelerate an end to the fighting and some compromise, seems to be aimed at prolonging the fighting,” Freeman, the former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, among a number of other senior positions, said. Invoking Freeman’s warning, Noam Chomsky concurs that US policy amounts to a “death warrant” for Ukraine. Indeed, on April 5, the Washington Post made clear the prevailing viewpoint in Washignton and Brussels: “For some in NATO, it’s better for the Ukrainians to keep fighting, and dying, than to achieve a peace that comes too early or at too high a cost to Kyiv and the rest of Europe.” While rhetorically claiming to support Ukrainian agency, in reality, the Post added, “there are limits to how many compromises some in NATO will support to win the peace.” This is undoubtedly the message being relayed to Zelensky from the White House in what National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan described as “near-daily contact” with Zelensky’s team about the negotiations with Russia. In sabotaging Zelensky’s peace mandate to side with the Ukrainian far-right, the US pushed Ukraine into a calamity that Professor Cohen warned about nearly three years ago. “There were moments in history, political history, when there’s an opportunity that is so good and wise and so often lost, the chance,” Cohen told me in October 2019. “So, the chance for Zelensky, the new president who had this very large victory, 70 plus percent to negotiate with Russia an end to that war, it’s got to be seized. And it requires the United States, basically, simply saying to Zelensky, ‘Go for it, we’ve got your back.’” By choosing to ignore the pleas of lonely voices like Cohen to instead have the back of Ukraine’s far-right, Washington sabotaged a historic peace mandate and helped provoke a catastrophic war. ** Full article: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/18/siding-with-ukraines-far-right-us-sabotaged-zelenskys-peace-mandate/ Edited January 7 by Scott75 Added information 1 Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 4 hours ago, Scott75 said: Your quote says that they didn't "establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election inteference activities". Left unsaid is that they didn't exonerate the Trump Campaign of doing this either. That being said, I've read about the "evidence" that was gathered against the Trump campaign. It's just bad and I strongly suspect that those who gathered it knew or at least suspected that it was bad, but gave it a pass anyway for political reasons. I've read another article from Aaron Mate that was published shortly after Russia's military operation in Ukraine began that provides a possible motive for giving this bad intelligence a pass. Quoting from the introduction and conclusion: ** On a warm October day in 2019, the eminent Russia studies professor Stephen F. Cohen and I sat down in Manhattan for what would be our last in-person interview (Cohen passed away in September 2020 at the age of 81). The House was gearing up to impeach Donald Trump for freezing weapons shipments to Ukraine while pressuring its government to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. The Beltway media was consumed with frenzy of a presidency in peril. But Professor Cohen, one of the leading Russia scholars in the United States, was concerned with what the impeachment spectacle in Washington meant for the long-running war between the US-backed Ukrainian government and Russian-backed rebels in the Donbas. At that point, Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky was just months into an upstart presidency that he had won on a pledge to end the Donbas conflict. Instead of supporting the Ukrainian leader’s peace mandate, Democrats in Congress were impeaching Trump for briefly impeding the flow of weapons that fueled the fight. As his Democratic allies now like to forget, President Obama refused to send these same weapons out of fear of prolonging the war and arming Nazis. By abandoning Obama’s policy, the Democrats, Cohen warned, threaten to sabotage peace and strengthen Ukraine’s far-right. “Zelensky ran as a peace candidate,” Cohen explained. “He won an enormous mandate to make peace. So, that means he has to negotiate with Vladimir Putin.” But there was a major obstacle. Ukrainian fascists “have said that they will remove and kill Zelensky if he continues along this line of negotiating with Putin… His life is being threatened literally by a quasi-fascist movement in Ukraine.” [snip] While claiming to profess concern for Ukrainian lives, NATO policymakers have made plain their disregard for diplomacy. Instead, as retired senior US diplomat Chas Freeman recently told me, they have pursued a policy of fighting Russia “to the last Ukrainian.” “Everything we are doing, rather than accelerate an end to the fighting and some compromise, seems to be aimed at prolonging the fighting,” Freeman, the former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, among a number of other senior positions, said. Invoking Freeman’s warning, Noam Chomsky concurs that US policy amounts to a “death warrant” for Ukraine. Indeed, on April 5, the Washington Post made clear the prevailing viewpoint in Washignton and Brussels: “For some in NATO, it’s better for the Ukrainians to keep fighting, and dying, than to achieve a peace that comes too early or at too high a cost to Kyiv and the rest of Europe.” While rhetorically claiming to support Ukrainian agency, in reality, the Post added, “there are limits to how many compromises some in NATO will support to win the peace.” This is undoubtedly the message being relayed to Zelensky from the White House in what National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan described as “near-daily contact” with Zelensky’s team about the negotiations with Russia. In sabotaging Zelensky’s peace mandate to side with the Ukrainian far-right, the US pushed Ukraine into a calamity that Professor Cohen warned about nearly three years ago. “There were moments in history, political history, when there’s an opportunity that is so good and wise and so often lost, the chance,” Cohen told me in October 2019. “So, the chance for Zelensky, the new president who had this very large victory, 70 plus percent to negotiate with Russia an end to that war, it’s got to be seized. And it requires the United States, basically, simply saying to Zelensky, ‘Go for it, we’ve got your back.’” By choosing to ignore the pleas of lonely voices like Cohen to instead have the back of Ukraine’s far-right, Washington sabotaged a historic peace mandate and helped provoke a catastrophic war. ** Full article: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/18/siding-with-ukraines-far-right-us-sabotaged-zelenskys-peace-mandate/ That article is pure revisionist drivel. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because of some rebels or some inability of Zelensky. They invaded Ukraine for the land. They did it with total disregard for life. They have targeted and killed thousands of civilians. They were never going to negotiate. Short of Zelensky giving up the land and moving everyone out, Russia/Putin would never have settled. 1 1 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Scott75 Posted January 7 Author Report Posted January 7 (edited) 1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said: 5 hours ago, Scott75 said: Your quote says that they didn't "establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election inteference activities". Left unsaid is that they didn't exonerate the Trump Campaign of doing this either. That being said, I've read about the "evidence" that was gathered against the Trump campaign. It's just bad and I strongly suspect that those who gathered it knew or at least suspected that it was bad, but gave it a pass anyway for political reasons. I've read another article from Aaron Mate that was published shortly after Russia's military operation in Ukraine began that provides a possible motive for giving this bad intelligence a pass. Quoting from the introduction and conclusion: ** On a warm October day in 2019, the eminent Russia studies professor Stephen F. Cohen and I sat down in Manhattan for what would be our last in-person interview (Cohen passed away in September 2020 at the age of 81). The House was gearing up to impeach Donald Trump for freezing weapons shipments to Ukraine while pressuring its government to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. The Beltway media was consumed with frenzy of a presidency in peril. But Professor Cohen, one of the leading Russia scholars in the United States, was concerned with what the impeachment spectacle in Washington meant for the long-running war between the US-backed Ukrainian government and Russian-backed rebels in the Donbas. At that point, Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky was just months into an upstart presidency that he had won on a pledge to end the Donbas conflict. Instead of supporting the Ukrainian leader’s peace mandate, Democrats in Congress were impeaching Trump for briefly impeding the flow of weapons that fueled the fight. As his Democratic allies now like to forget, President Obama refused to send these same weapons out of fear of prolonging the war and arming Nazis. By abandoning Obama’s policy, the Democrats, Cohen warned, threaten to sabotage peace and strengthen Ukraine’s far-right. “Zelensky ran as a peace candidate,” Cohen explained. “He won an enormous mandate to make peace. So, that means he has to negotiate with Vladimir Putin.” But there was a major obstacle. Ukrainian fascists “have said that they will remove and kill Zelensky if he continues along this line of negotiating with Putin… His life is being threatened literally by a quasi-fascist movement in Ukraine.” [snip] While claiming to profess concern for Ukrainian lives, NATO policymakers have made plain their disregard for diplomacy. Instead, as retired senior US diplomat Chas Freeman recently told me, they have pursued a policy of fighting Russia “to the last Ukrainian.” “Everything we are doing, rather than accelerate an end to the fighting and some compromise, seems to be aimed at prolonging the fighting,” Freeman, the former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, among a number of other senior positions, said. Invoking Freeman’s warning, Noam Chomsky concurs that US policy amounts to a “death warrant” for Ukraine. Indeed, on April 5, the Washington Post made clear the prevailing viewpoint in Washignton and Brussels: “For some in NATO, it’s better for the Ukrainians to keep fighting, and dying, than to achieve a peace that comes too early or at too high a cost to Kyiv and the rest of Europe.” While rhetorically claiming to support Ukrainian agency, in reality, the Post added, “there are limits to how many compromises some in NATO will support to win the peace.” This is undoubtedly the message being relayed to Zelensky from the White House in what National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan described as “near-daily contact” with Zelensky’s team about the negotiations with Russia. In sabotaging Zelensky’s peace mandate to side with the Ukrainian far-right, the US pushed Ukraine into a calamity that Professor Cohen warned about nearly three years ago. “There were moments in history, political history, when there’s an opportunity that is so good and wise and so often lost, the chance,” Cohen told me in October 2019. “So, the chance for Zelensky, the new president who had this very large victory, 70 plus percent to negotiate with Russia an end to that war, it’s got to be seized. And it requires the United States, basically, simply saying to Zelensky, ‘Go for it, we’ve got your back.’” By choosing to ignore the pleas of lonely voices like Cohen to instead have the back of Ukraine’s far-right, Washington sabotaged a historic peace mandate and helped provoke a catastrophic war. ** Full article: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/18/siding-with-ukraines-far-right-us-sabotaged-zelenskys-peace-mandate/ That article is pure revisionist drivel. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because of some rebels or some inability of Zelensky. They invaded Ukraine for the land. They did it with total disregard for life. They have targeted and killed thousands of civilians. They were never going to negotiate. Short of Zelensky giving up the land and moving everyone out, Russia/Putin would never have settled. I suspect that this is what the western mainstream media would have you believe. It's not the truth though. You may not be aware of this, but Ukraine started a civil war 8 years before Russia's military operation. That, in turn, only started after a massacre killing dozens of people in the capital in early 2014, which was swiftly blamed on the elected President of the time, Victor Yanukovych, who in turn fled for his life to Russia. A lot of evidence has since surfaced that Yanukovych was -not- responsible for that massacre. A good article on a lot of this evidence can be seen here: https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hidden-truth-about-ukraine-italian-documentary-bombshell-evidence-kiev-euromaidan-snipers-kill-demonstrators/5619684 Anyway, as I said, after Yanukovych's flight to Russia and the takeover of the Ukrainian government by far right and neo nazi elements, those same elements almost immediately tried to denigrate the Russian language by forbidding it to be used in government institutions in all of Ukraine, despite the fact that it was the primary language for many eastern Ukrainians. This may well have been the final straw for the Crimeans, who held a referendum to rejoin Russia. After the referendum was in favour of rejoining, Russia accepted and annexed them back into Russia. Much of the rest of eastern Ukraine, while never having been part of Russia in the past, still had strong linguistic and ethnic ties to Russia, and so began to engage protests in eastern Ukrainian cities, perhaps most notably in Odessa. The same far right elements I mentioned previously perpetrated a massacre there. Evgeny Norin, a Russian historian focused on Russia's wars and international politics, wrote a very good article on the whole thing, which can be seen here: https://www.rt.com/russia/554860-burned-alive-2014-odessa/ Quoting from the article: ** A total of 48 people died: two Maidan activists and 46 Kulikovo Field Anti-Maidan protesters – two on Grecheskaya Street, and 42 at Kulikovo Field Square. Eight people jumped from the building to their deaths, while others suffocated or died from burns. All were citizens of Ukraine. A total of 247 people requested medical help following the incident, of whom 27 had been wounded by gunfire. Albu, the local politician and one of the leaders of the group, was among those who had taken cover in the building but survived. He later joined the LPR’s Prizrak Brigade in Donbass. Another leader, local MP Vyacheslav Markin, died the next morning from injuries sustained after jumping from the building to escape the fire. Ashes In the following years, not a single person responsible for the killings in Odessa was punished in any way. Many of the murderers acted openly, wearing no masks or disguises, and were very straightforward about their intentions. Only a handful even faced criminal investigation. But ultimately, not a single one was brought before the courts to answer for the crimes committed. Whatever hearings did manage to be scheduled were derailed by the so-called ‘patriots’. A number of judges were forced to recuse themselves from the cases after receiving threats from militants. Meanwhile, high-ranking Ukrainian politicians were quick to identify the ‘culprits’. Ukraine’s acting President Oleksandr Turchinov said that the disturbances in Odessa “were coordinated from a single center located in Russia.” Sergey Pashinsky, acting head of the presidential administration, said that it was “an FSB provocation to divert attention from the [so-called] anti-terrorist operation [in the Donbass]”. Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry declared that “the tragedy was a pre-planned and well-financed operation by the Russian special services.” From the very beginning, the authorities in Odessa seemed to deliberately obstruct the investigation. By the morning of May 3, the area around Grecheskaya Street had been cleared by municipal workers, who quickly disposed of all the physical evidence. The Trade Unions building remained open to the public for the following month. Citizens could watch live streams from the smoldering ruins, with one cameraman referring to the corpses of a young pair as “Romeo and Juliet.” No attempt was made to preserve the crime scene. The weapons used to kill people were never found. And these are just a few examples of the investigation’s dismissive and negligent attitude toward the case. In September 2015, UN Special Rapporteur Christof Heyns acknowledged that the bulk of the evidence relating to the May 2 events was destroyed immediately after the crime. Euromaidan activist Sergei Khodiyak, who fired at people with a hunting rifle, was released from custody, and the judge recused himself from the case under pressure from a group of Maidan activists led by Igor Mosiychuk, an MP from the nationalist Radical Party. Vsevolod Goncharevsky, who used a club to beat and finish off Kulikovo activists who had jumped out of the windows of the burning building, was released due to a “lack of evidence.” [snip] In fact, Ukrainian social media did exactly what is commonly attributed to Russian propaganda. The piles of burnt corpses evoked feelings of horror, but also of rage. May 2014 was a breaking point: volunteers from Russia started to arrive in the breakaway republics en masse and even some men from Western Europe came to fight on their side. Slogans about autonomous status and the need to engage in talks with Kiev gave way to an unwavering resolve and determination to stand and fight to the bitter end. Just a few days after May 2, a Donbass rebel wrote on a destroyed and burned-out Ukrainian infantry fighting vehicle: “This is for Odessa, you bastards.” ** Despite all of this, for 8 years, Russia tried to find a diplomatic solution to this civil war. Putin even mentioned this in the speech he gave on the day he started his military operation: ** This brings me to the situation in Donbass. We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned the path of a peaceful conflict settlement. For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means. Everything was in vain. As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics. ** Full transcript: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/statements/67843 Former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud provides evidence that strongly suggests that Putin's motivation for starting his military operation when he did was based primarily on western Ukraine once again attacking the Donbass region, despite the Minsk accords prohibiting it. Quoting from an article he wrote shortly after the military operation began: ** In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers from the Donbass being run over. If he decides to intervene, Vladimir Putin can invoke the international obligation of “ Responsibility To Protect ” (R2P). But he knows that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention will trigger a shower of sanctions. Therefore, whether its intervention is limited to the Donbass or whether it goes further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to be paid will be the same. This is what he explains in his speech on February 21. That day, he acceded to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Republics of Donbass and, in the process, he signed treaties of friendship and assistance with them. The Ukrainian artillery bombardments on the populations of Donbass continued and, on February 23, the two Republics requested military aid from Russia. On the 24th, Vladimir Putin invokes Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which provides for mutual military assistance within the framework of a defensive alliance. In order to make the Russian intervention totally illegal in the eyes of the public we deliberately obscure the fact that the war actually started on February 16th. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as certain Russian and European intelligence services were well aware… The lawyers will judge. ** Full article: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/ Edited January 7 by Scott75 Quote
Hodad Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said: That article is pure revisionist drivel. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because of some rebels or some inability of Zelensky. They invaded Ukraine for the land. They did it with total disregard for life. They have targeted and killed thousands of civilians. They were never going to negotiate. Short of Zelensky giving up the land and moving everyone out, Russia/Putin would never have settled. Damn right it is. This idea that there would be peace if only Ukraine lacked the means to defend itself is nonsense and pure Russian propaganda. 1 Quote
User Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 6 hours ago, Scott75 said: Your quote says that they didn't "establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election inteference activities". Left unsaid is that they didn't exonerate the Trump Campaign of doing this either. That being said, I've read about the "evidence" that was gathered against the Trump campaign. It's just bad and I strongly suspect that those who gathered it knew or at least suspected that it was bad, but gave it a pass anyway for political reasons. Exhonorate them? That is not what an investigation does. You are innocent until proven guilty and they couldn't even find any evidence. My quote is from the Mueller report and backs up exactly what I said. 6 hours ago, Scott75 said: I've read another article from Aaron Mate that was published shortly after Russia's military operation in Ukraine began that provides a possible motive for giving this bad intelligence a pass. Quoting from the introduction and conclusion: I have no idea what any of this has to do with anything I am talking about here. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.