Within the small community conducting technical analysis of the DNC hack, there has been ongoing controversy over whether Guccifer 2 (G2) was a false flag for the Russians, whether G2 was located in the US rather than Russia, whether the G2 files were copied locally rather than hacked, whether G2 was a false flag for the DNC (didn’t hack any documents at all).
In today’s post, I’ll try to shed a little light on the puzzle by presenting a case that metadata from G2’s cf.7z dossier shows that, between at least January 7, 2016 and May 4, 2016, Guccifer 2 copied numerous documents (primarily from the Democratic Party of Virginia – DPVA) within a few minutes of the documents being saved. This strongly suggests to me that Guccifer 2 was a genuine hacker who had indeed installed malware on a Democrat computer, which was then used to automatically exfiltrate documents.
Unlike the ngpvan.7z previously analysed by Forensicator, the copying structure of cf.7z is formidably complex, with evidence of both Unix-type and Windows-type copying, possibly in multiple stages.
Stale Documents
Forensicator’s analysis of the ngpvan.7z dossier was restricted to the 7z (or directory) modification dates and times in the 7z archive i.e. the modification times displayed by the 7z software. In the ngpvan.7z dossier, all documents had directory modification dates of July 5, 2016 and modification times within one 14-minute session. In addition to their properties in 7z, the documents (pdf, docx, xlsx) also have metadata from their original software. I’ve manually opened and examined document modification times of examples from all ngpvan.7z directories, without finding a single document that wasn’t extremely stale (2008-2011).
There are many stale documents in the cf.7z dossier as well, though typically somewhat less stale (2013-2014). Some documents even came from the same July 5, 2016 copy operation as ngpvan.7z (as previously discussed at CA here and Forensicator here.) The July 5 copying incident appears to me to be an internal re-arrangement of Guccifer 2’s inventory of documents, rather than an exfiltration event, as G2 was almost certainly expelled from DNC computers by July 5.
“Bulk” Unix Copying
The July 5 copy incident was an example of “bulk” Unix-style copying i.e. copies linked together in one copying session with the same modification date and sequential modification times. Prior to the July 5 incident, there were previous sessions with “bulk” copying on April 18, May 23, June 4, June 6 and June 20. These typically retrieved stale documents, but the June 4 session was an exception: it included the most recent documents in the entire G2 corpus – documents dated to June 1 and June 2, 2016 not just by metadata but by contents e.g. Orange Pod Press Clips 6.1.16.docx in the Intern Sandbox directory.
There are also examples of “fossilized” bulk copying e.g. Insurance Benefits Summary directory where the document modification times (in addition to 7z modification times) show the sequential modifications characteristic of a bulk Unix copy. In this case, the bulk Unix copy appears to have been followed by a Windows-type copy (preserving the document modification times to the 7z modification times).
Same-Day Copies – Timezone Issues
Unlike ngpvan.7z, the cf.7z dossier contained numerous documents from 2015 and first half 2016, including numerous documents with identical 7z and document modification dates. However, the modification times presented problems as shown in the table below: the document modification time and 7z modification time were exactly four hours apart. The minutes and seconds matched exactly, but not the hours. This shows that a Window-type copying operation has taken place after which 7z interprets the modification time incorrectly. My surmise is that 1) the document modification time is saved as absolute seconds in local time; 2) the 7z software presumes that the absolute seconds are in UTC i.e. the document is 10:31 UTC rather than 10:31 Eastern; 3) 7z then displays the directory modification time in local time (6:31 Eastern), 4 hours “earlier” than the corresponding document modification time.
Complicating matters further, 7z handles timezone metadata for pdf documents differently than docx or xlsx documents. The next table shows directory and document modification times for selected pdf, docx and xlsx documents when inspected in Eastern (columns 6-7) and UTC (columns 8-9). Pdf documents display the same local time in both Eastern and UTC (and all other timezones) i.e. different absolute times, while docx and xlsx documents display different local times in Eastern and UTC timezones (but a constant absolute time).
Constructing a Database of Metadata
In order to advance from manual inspection and collation to analysis of the full population, I constructed a database as follows.
The R function file.info is able to extract directory modification times (also creation and access times, not relevant here). I was able to locate an R packages (pdftools) which extracts pdf metadata, including document modification and creation times, but I was unable to locate a corresponding package for Word or Excel (though one probably exists.)
I first extracted the 7z dossier from 7z into a Windows directory after first setting my computer to UTC. (I originally did this in Eastern, but eventually settled on UTC with the objective of simplifying analysis.) Using R, I then sequentially extracted document names in each directory down all directory and subdirectory trees, keeping track of the directory tree and document name. This resulted in 2105 documents without unpacking the zip directories (which contained stale documents anyway.)
I then added a column in which I distinguished pdf, docx and xlsx documents using grep: there were 815 doc, 597 pdf and 356 xls. There were also a few txt, xml and miscellaneous documents, which I didn’t consider for the analysis.
I then extracted the directory modification time (as a POSIXct object) for each document using the R-function file.info. This enables a separate extraction of timezone. The timezone for all documents was shown as EDT and/or EST even when I set the computer to UTC. I’m not sure whether this is an artifact of my usual computer setting (Eastern) or whether it is additional evidence that G2 operated in Eastern time (evidence of which has been presented previously by Forensicator and myself.) Someone may be able to shed light on this for me.
I then extracted document modification and creation times for the 597 pdf’s. Not all pdf documents had readable document modification times and/or some retrieved pdf document dates were in the 22nd century and clearly an artifact. These dates were set to NA. This left a dataset of 530 pdf documents with both document modification times and directory modification times.
The next graph shows the number of days between document modification date and 7z modification date for these 530 pdf documents. The “stale” documents are typically 3-4 years old (with some nearly 10 years old). There are nearly 200 pdf documents with less than 50 days between document and 7z modifications, including 122 documents in which modification dates are identical. 
From the same-day inventory, we wish to exclude Windows-type copying (using Forensicator’s distinction) which is uninformative because the copy modification metadata simply preserves the document modification metadata. The pdf’s in the Insurance Benefits Summary directory (shown in the first example above) are of this type. This excluded 20 documents and left a dataset of 102 documents with modification dates ranging from January 7, 2016 to May 4, 2016. An extract showing the first five examples is shown below (otime- directory modification time; dtime – document modification time; ozone- directory timezone). In each case, the directory modification time is 3-12 minutes after the document was saved (document modification time). All but two EST documents fit this pattern.
However, for documents with EDT timezones, the 7z modification time is “earlier” than the document modification time. The anomaly seems to be something to do with a difference between EST and EDT, but it is not just that: a bodge of an additional hour gets rid of some discrepancies, but many documents are still 10-30 minutes “early”. I’m presently stumped.
Again, we know that the 7z modification time cannot be earlier than the document modification time. Even without being able to precisely pin down the reason for the discrepancy, we can still safely record the range of dates on which we’ve observed documents with identical directory and document modification dates and non-identical modification times – from January 7, 2016 to May 4, 2016.
xlsx and docx Documents
I did a spot check of xlsx and docx documents (doing manual comparison) – not especially thorough. Examples in the spot check with 2015 modification dates were all Windows-type copying (exactly the same modification time “modulo” hours – to borrow a math term) and thus uninformative on the copy date.
Discussion
The short time interval between a document being saved (document modification time) and being copied to an archive used in compilation of cf.7z indicates to me that these particular documents were not exfiltrated manually, but instead with some sort of “eavesdropping” software. (This observation applies only to this subset of documents, not to “batch” copying.)
The range of observed dates seems interpretable to me:
The terminus ab quo date of January 7, 2016 for automated eavesdropping is only a couple of weeks after a computer security incident in which Sanders supporters obtained access to NGP files that were supposed to be private to Hillary Clinton supporters (incident described by DNC here). Guccifer 2 claimed to Vice magazine to have obtained access to DNC computers through a “0-day exploit of NGP VAN soft”, after which he claimed to have “installed shell-code into the DNC server”. In the same interview, he claimed to have first hacked them in summer 2015. Guccifer 2’s claim to have accessed DNC servers through a 0-day exploit of NGP VAN software commending in summer 2015 has been widely repudiated e.g. ThreatConnect here. It seems entirely possible to me that Guccifer 2’s access began in December 2015 or January 2016 rather than summer 2015 – statements in a hacker interview ought to be considered, but deception and misdirection needs to be allowed for. It also seems possible to me that the NGP-VAN incident in December 2015 might have functioned similarly to the Mole incident in Climategate – an analogy that will not have any meaning to anyone other than long-time Climate Audit readers but may nonetheless be useful. The Mole incident resulted in numerous Climate Audit readers looking through and parsing the University of East Anglia website and FTP site for clues. A couple of readers reported falling through trapdoors into unexpected areas of the computer, but chose not to investigate. My guess is that Mr FOIA did so as well, but, unlike the other readers, continued into the UEA computer, eventually discovering the backup email server. I can readily imagine a computer nerd/geek/hacker being drawn to the DNC computer by the NGP VAN incident and gaining access (just as Mr FOIA obtained access to UEA.) Such a scenario is consistent with the terminus ab quo of January 7 (but obviously not proven by this).
The terminus ad quem date is May 4, 2016, only a couple of days prior to Crowdstrike’s installation of Falcon software. Although Crowdstrike was unsuccessful in interrupting the leak of DNC emails, it would be odd if their anti-hacking software didn’t do anything. Based on these dates, perhaps Crowdstrike did indeed interrupt Guccifer 2’s automatic eavesdropping, but without preventing access entirely (based on subsequent batch copying sessions on May 23, June 6 and June 10 plus emails continuing to May 25.)
To my eye, there is convincing evidence that G2 actually hacked Democrat Party computers from at least January 2016 on. This is inconsistent with Adam Carter’s theory that G2 was a false flag operation by Crowdstrike and the DNC – the metadata points to too early a start to support such a theory. G2 metadata also points too early for G2 to be a false flag by Fancy Bear/APT28 who are said to have gained access only in April 2016.
The hacking dates of Guccifer 2 more plausibly connect to the dates assigned to the user of the tools ascribed to Cozy Bear/APT 29. This in turn points to a very specific attribution question: how unique are the tools ascribed to the “Cozy Bear” group (as opposed to the Fancy Bear group)? Are they generic enough to be available to a lone wolf hacker, making unique attribution subject to great uncertainty?
No bleaching of metadata: in the Climategate CG-1 release, Mr FOIA (a lone individual, not an intelligence service) bleached all metadata showing date of access and download of the emails, but neglected to bleach directory timestamp metadata for numerous documents. See discussion and compilation at ijish.livejournal.com ^ . The timestamp information showed that Mr FOIA’s access to documents began on or about Sept 15, 2009 (a month after the Mole Incident) and ended on November 16, 2009. It also showed that Mr FOIAuploaded documents specifically pertaining to Yamal within a few hours of a widely publicized Climate Audit post on Yamal. In CG-2, Mr FOIA bleached all directory timestamp information. In contrast, G2 did not bleach any directory metadata – for some reason, omitting a precaution taken by Mr FOIA.
G2 and the Russian “Clown Outfit”: In Climategate, while Mr FOIA bleached directory metadata, he did not change or modify any internal document (pdf, doc, xls) metadata on modification times, default language or anything else. Nor did Guccifer 2 for any of the documents in cf.7z, ngpvan.7z or any of the documents released at the G2 blog from July on. However, as discussed endlessly, in G2’s announcement blogpost, he attached four documents (1.doc, 2.doc, 3.doc and 5.doc) which had been materially altered earlier on June 15 with the sole purpose of adding “Russian” metadata (see recent CA review here ^). A distinction between directory metadata and document metadata has been emphasized over and over in this post and I hope that this highlights the baroque-ness of G2’s “Russian” alterations on June 15. Some commenters, even so-called “experts” such as Thomas Rid, have grossly misled their readers on these alterations: Rid claimed that later G2 releases “were now scrubbed of the sort of distinguishing metadata that had allowed analysts to trace the leak back to Russian intelligence”. What total rubbish. No such metadata was “scrubbed” in cf.7z or other later releases. The situation is the opposite to what Rid describes: the “distinguishing metadata” had been manually added to a few early documents on June 15.
My own working hypothesis is that G2 was a lone wolf hacker. This is a surmise only. This surmise is NOT proven by the analysis provided above, but I do not believe that it is inconsistent with the information marshalled here. I’ll try to outline why I believe G2 to have been a lone wolf hacker on another occasion.
Climate Audit 
1153 Comments
Interestingly, MS Office and PDF documents have internal timestamps for creation, editing, etc. That’s completely separate from the *file* create/modify timestamps. I have tools that can examine the internal info and restore it to the file official stamps…
File create timestamps only reflect the file itself, not the contents (ie if you copy a file the new copy normally has a fresh create timestamp.)
Modify timestamps normally are retained across copying.
A few exceptions:
* FTP transfers or other remote upload/downloads: it depends on detail settings. Default usually does not preserve timestamps
* There are lots of utility apps that make copies and preserve timestamps
“Guccifer 2 copied numerous documents (primarily from the Democratic Party of Virginia – DPVA) within a few minutes of the documents being saved.”
Do the non-DPVA documents of cf.7z indicate they were likely to be held by the DNC alone? Could the hacking (convincingly argued here) be on a separate DVPA computer rather than a DNC computer? (Meaning Crowdstrike saw someone else). Would they share homes?
And, for example, could the ngpvan.7z derive from an internal access or outside hack on a different DNC computer back in 2011?
> To my eye, there is convincing evidence that G2 actually hacked Democrat Party computers from at least January 2016 on.
But why CrowdStrike or Threatconnect never provided any details about this NGP VAN Zero-day Attack hack or asserted specifically how G2 hacked DNC?
Crowdstrike only mentioned:
On June 14th:
“At DNC, COZY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April 2016.”
“The COZY BEAR intrusion relied primarily on the SeaDaddy implant”
“FANCY BEAR adversary used different tradecraft, deploying X-Agent malware with capabilities to do remote command execution, file transmission and keylogging.”
src: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/
On June 15th
“Whether or not this posting is part of a Russian Intelligence disinformation campaign, we are exploring the documents’ authenticity and origin.”
They never stated any further results from this “exploring” and never said that Guccifer 2.0 hack was Fancy bear X-Agent or Cosy Bear SeaDaddy.
Crowdstrike yearly report doesnt mention Guccifer 2.0 at all. src: https://go.crowdstrike.com/rs/281-OBQ-266/images/Report2016CyberIntrusionServicesCasebook.pdf
But in IC reports we find assessment that G2 was part of GRU/Fancy Bear/APT 28
“We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU ) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim dataobtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.”
“We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com , and WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.
1. Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims about his likely Russian identity throughout the election. Press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer 2.0 interacted with journalists.
2. Content that we assess was taken from e – mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.com starting in June.”
src: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
Seems like they Assume that Guccifer 2.0 was part of GRU operation only because they think he was connected to DCLeaks, which was shown to not be necessary true by Adam: http://g-2.space/dcl/
Enhanced Analysis of GRIZZLY STEPPE Activity only Mentions Guccifer 2.0 once, citing
ThreatConnect report that was proven to have mistakes,mentined VPN service did not use “cloned server” but default IP accesible to all clients of Elite-VPN: http://g-2.space/#4 see:(Update 12 March)
src: https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/AR-17-20045_Enhanced_Analysis_of_GRIZZLY_STEPPE_Activity.pdf
ThreatConnect – ThreatConnect follows Guccifer 2.0 to Russian VPN Service – APT28
Click to access AR-17-20045_Enhanced_Analysis_of_GRIZZLY_STEPPE_Activity.pdf
Thomas Rid, doesnt seem really reliable information
“Between June 2015 and November 2016, at least six front organizations sprung up as outlets 4 for compromised files by GRU: Yemen Cyber Army, Cyber Berkut, Guccifer 2.0, DC Leaks, Fancy Bea rs Hack Team, and @ANPoland.”
src: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-trid-033017.pdf
Threatconnect wrote they doubt in anything Guccifer 2.0 said about his hack or how he obtained his documents.
“The NGP VAN Zero-day Attack Vector Seems Off”
“Guccifer 2.0’s Actions are Atypical Hacktivist Behaviors”
“Inconsistencies Between Guccifer 2.0’s Statements and Actions”
“Questions About Guccifer 2.0’s Persona and Backstory”
src: https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/guccifer-2-0-dnc-breach/#NGP
Funny thing about being a Romanian hacker with Russian whiskers, in the Steele Dossier the last document of December ’16 claims the Russians (and Trump) were using Romanian hackers.
I think the writer incorporated the G2 story into his own.
The writer of the Steele dossier incorporated numerous public details which give the memoranda more weight to a credulous reader than they deserve. AFAIK, anything in the dossier that is true was known publicly; and anything in the dossier that was not drawn from public sources and which can be crosschecked (e.g. Michael Cohen in Prague) is false.
I read the June 23, 2017 article you mentioned.
My feeling is we are witnesses to the greatest “trolling” ever. It is clearly the Fusion GPS documents at play.
These select CIA people who believed the dossier–how did they feel when Comey released it and most everybody laughed at it? Are Comey’s weird actions a reflection that he believed it too?
From the IC report issued January 6, 2017 (as copied by Lurker above)
“We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com , and WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.”
Wikileaks immediately issued a statement denying that Russia was their source and indeed, claimed that the Wikileaks emails were provided by a DNC insider with legal access to the DNC server. This statement was contrary to their former policy of not commenting on sources, neither affirming nor denying speculation on these. One is faced with two alternative conclusions:
One, that Assange and Craig Murray both are li*ars or two, the U.S. IC is incompetent, or worse.
Note the date of the IC report, January 6, coincides with Comey’s meeting with Trump and the revelation through media outlets of the dirty dossier on Trump. It should be noted that the IC report itself was a singular event, contrary to the IC practice of never disclosing publicly its conclusions. It is easy to conclude that the U.S. IC and Comey coordinated on a campaign to publicly discredit and undermine Trump on the eve of his inauguration.
I want to add here, that US intelligence agencies showed no real interest to investigate this hacking properly.
I have seen 4 entities that are mentioned in report, saying they were never contacted by any agency and asked for logs.
1. elite-VPN:
http://g-2.space/#4
Elite-VPN, Rusisan owned VPN provider with servers in France that Guccifer 2.0 was using, claims they heard about this from media, and were never contacted by any US agency. And they claim ThreaetConnect made some crucial mistakes in their report (never corrected them)
2. Julian Assange Wikileaks:
Claimed multiple times that no US agency contacted him or WL regarding any information.
> Julian Assange @JulianAssange Oct 4
> US Senate Intelligence Committee is ridiculous. Did not approach me or WikiLeaks for testimony or information, at all, ever. Unprofessional.
3. FBI never seized DNC servers. They completely relied on CrowdStrike reports.
Here’s an excerpt from the report:
*“The FBI, having asked multiple times at different levels, was refused access to the DNC server(s). It is not apparent that any law enforcement agency had access.
*The apparent single source of information on the purported DNC intrusion(s) was from Crowdstrike.
*Crowdstrike is a cyber security firm hired by the Democratic Party.
https://nef4rhc.wordpress.com/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/14/the-russian-hacking-story-continues-to-unravel/
4. A bit unrelated but still:
> Mr. Fomenko is the owner of a server rental company called King Servers used by hackers in an incursion on computerized election systems in Arizona and Illinois this year.
> “We have the information, but nobody contacted us,” said Vladimir M. Fomenko
> “The analysis of the internal data allows King Services to confidently refute any conclusions about the involvement of the Russian special services in this attack,” he said in his statement.
> The clients, though, had left a trail through their contact with his billing page, he said.
> It was these addresses, he said, that he would be willing to share with the F.B.I., if “somebody wants to sort this out.”
> No foreign official has taken up his offer to supply server logs, billing information, and other data that may help to identify the hackers, Russian or otherwise.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/02/21/exclusive-vladimir-fomenko-the-only-russian-with-known-links-to-u-s-political-hacking-speaks-out/#3a9266aa6fee
I think any half serious investigator would contact all this sources and ask them for their logs and accessible metadata information. FBI apparently didnt bother.
One more interesting detail:
Roger Stone, having just testified before a closed-door meeting before Congress regarding the DNC security breach on September 26
> “The most interesting about the hearing was that, in my statement, I strongly asserted my suspicion that the Russians never hacked the DNC and, of course, one of the central arguments, to that effect, is that the DNC refused to turn over their computer servers to the FBI, instead having it inspected by CrowdStrike, a forensic IT firm controlled directly and paid by the DNC.
114218876441
> When I said that, Congresswoman Speier from California corrected me and told me that the DNC servers had been turned over to the FBI, and then Congressman Schiff essentially confirmed that, after which, Trey Gowdy said, ‘wait a minute, James Comey came before this committee, secretary Johnson came before this committee, and testified under oath that the servers were not turned over to the FBI, so what are you talking about?’
114218876441
> Schiff tried to change the subject and said, ‘well, we’ve got a lot of information that we learned during the recess and maybe we should talk about this privately.’ Gowdy seemed furious and stormed out of the hearing, so somebody’s lying.”
http://www.rightsidenews.com/us/politics/roger-stone-schiff-speer-says-dnc-handed-server/amp/
Seems like some people are either not aware of fact that FBI never examined DNC servers or they intentionally lie about this, hoping that this bit of information will be lost in history.
Lurker, for your #2, Julian Assange’s tweet does not say “no US agency contacted him or WL regarding any information.” It says the US Senate Intelligence Committee did not contact them. Do you have a source showing where he says intelligence agencies didn’t contact him rather than one saying a Senate committee did not?
In regard to #3, how do you reconcile your claim the FBI “completely relied on CrowdStrike reports” when the DNC has publicly stated it turned over forensic images of its computer system to the FBI, images which would be exact copies of the machines the FBI would want to examine? Also, why do you claim to provide “an excerpt from the report” while quoting a blog post which explicitly states the items you quote “were not included in one or the other above reports”?
Here Brandon, this should help you get up to speed. In fact, I recommend that you read the whole posting/comments from last month. Mr Pete posted this:
Posted Sep 3, 2017 at 10:04 PM | Permalink | Reply
A byte-for-byte copy of a drive is insufficient as a forensic copy, at the FBI level and above.
It’s sufficient for those who only want to see what is *currently* written.
However, AFAIK (as a former drive recording technology expert in the commercial realm) there are most likely classified methods available to detect what may have previously been written to the drive.
My conclusion: most definitely The FBI should have taken possession of the actual disks.
Steve: very useful comment. The contrast with police taking Climategate server is pretty striking, especially given the fallout of DNC attribution.
Brandon Shollenberger
Yes I know that my #2 claim was not supported by links.
I have in my mind that Assange said something similar before US Senate Intelligence Committee investigation. But I am not sure where I have read that.
Maybe I have remembered this incorrectly and I heard Craig Murray saying this as this is related to same leak.
Here is one link where Craig Murray states he was not contacted by US investigators, despite saying publicly that he has evidence that WL published emails were not result of hack but leak.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/julian-assange-associate-not-contacted-investigators-tell-leaks-not-hacks/
One more important thing that many “conspiracy theorists” get wrong. Craig Murray never said he personally received leaked emails during that meeting in woods near university.
He stated in replies to comments on his blog and on video that he never received any thumb drive. Meeting seem to be just to confirm authenticity of source.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/russian-bear-uses-keyboard/comment-page-1/#comment-643257
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/russian-bear-uses-keyboard/comment-page-1/#comment-643236
@Brandon
Where did you get this: “DNC has publicly stated it turned over forensic images of its computer system to the FBI”?
Link please.
All information that I have seen directly contradicts this.
Jaap Titulaer:
I don’t understand how this could possibly be true. How could all information you have seen directly contradict this when the comment you posted immediately before this one cites a source which says:
I don’t understand how you can cite a source which says the same thing I did then 13 minutes later turn around and say everything you have seen directly contradicts what I said.
Well the name and subtitle of the report on medium kind of indicates that they are not buying anything from CrowdStrike…
“Data that would shed light on claims of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election remains out of investigators’ hands.”
I just needed a copy from a quote from Carr that I’ve read many months ago. That happened to be in the linked report as well.
I must say I did kind of skip the claim made by CS (I really should do a better close read next time). Anyways the claim by CS is a ludicrous.
They mention ““forensic images” of the server” and link to the source for that, which is titled:
“Hacked computer server that handled DNC email remains out of reach of Russia investigators” (by The Washington Times), dated 2017-07-05.
And there is says:
So CS claims to have supplied ‘forensic images’. A rather odd claim to make after more than a year.
So I do not think that they really mean Forensic Disk Images, I think this person will later claim (when asked under oath) that he is misunderstood and meant ‘forensic samples’ or ‘forensic file images’…
So files or even just parts of files. Files are of course parts of the entire disk, so you can call them (parts of) parts of (disk) images…
And Comey said in a Hearing under oath (just a few days after this report in TWP) something quite different.
See my post on this here: https://climateaudit.org/2017/10/06/whiskers-on-software-part-1/#comment-775825
Ergo: The DNC did not turn over the server(s) to the FBI so that the FBI could examine them.
And the FBI also did not receive the content, so neither did they get full disk images.
And we can also say that the FBI did not even receive significant enough content (enough files) to claim under oath that they had received content. Apart from the report by CS they (the FBI) may have received some additional files or fragments, in so far not already included in the report itself. But that’s it.
Also: if they (CS & DNC) had really given the FBI actual full forensic disk images of all servers (dating from PRIOR to the server wipe & reinstall, of course), then why would they (CS & DNC) still not allow the FBI to look at the same servers for themselves?
That makes no sense.
Thanks, Jaap Titulaer. CrowdStrike does not strike me as honest; neither does Comey, but Comey is admitting something that does him no credit and he seems truthful in his testimony regarding this particular.
Shawn Henry is a factor in all of this. He joined CrowdStrike in 2012 from the FBI where he was high in that organization, close to Mueller. In short, he was Mueller’s protege and rose to the top under Mueller. So there are swamp creatures slithering all over this CrowdStrike/DNC/FBI affair. I have no doubt that CrowdStrike felt that, because of their advantageous position in the swamp, they were licensed to strain the fabric of truth in this whole business.
Jaap Titulaer:
You are free to conclude that. Given the host of this site has openly called James Comey a liar I’m not sure how ready people here would be to accept a single remark without any detail or specifity as true. I know I’m not convinced. Until someone provides more information/detail, I’m not going to draw conclusions.
What I will say if the DNC and Crowdstrike have falsely claimed to have provided forensic images of the DNC systems to law enforcement, people should be making a big fuss about it. If you want to discredit someone’s narrative, showing they’ve (basically) lied about what they turned over to the authorities is a good way to do it.
It makes perfect sense to me they might not want to give up dozens (or more) computers and other devices, especially since they were in the middle of campaign season. It’s not like they could just hand over a single server tower. A full forensic analysis would require examining every device on their network. That’d create a huge headache and cost a fair amount of money as they’d need to get replacements.
I haven’t seen anything to suggest the FBI promised to do an in situ analysis during off-hours to minimize the disruption their investigation might cause. If they did and the DNC turned that down, that would raise red flags for me. Turning down an offer by the FBI to take every device you have for an indefinite period of time doesn’t raise red flags for me though.
I’ve seen companies cooperate with law enforcement after a cyberintrusion where the law enforcement involvement caused more disruption and difficulty than the cyberintrusion itself did. That’s one of the reasons law enforcement doesn’t get called after attacks sometimes.
In the middle of a campaign, I think it would be unwise to allow the government access to your documents. Some of the material could reach the other side.
mpainter concluded: “One is faced with two alternative conclusions: One, that Assange and Craig Murray both are li*ars or two, the U.S. IC is incompetent, or worse.”
There is, of course, a third possibility. The US IC has dealt incompetently with this issue AND Assange and Craig Murray are dissembling about their source. Unlike the Western press and FOIA, WikiLeaks makes no attempt to limit disclosures to material that will usefully inform the public. Given their willingness to create damage for no useful purpose, I see no reason to believe they would reject material they suspected might have been hacked by a non-Western intelligence service, nor would I expect them to seek out and tell the truth about such sources.
mpainter writes: “Note the date of the IC report, January 6, coincides with Comey’s meeting with Trump and the revelation through media outlets of the dirty dossier on Trump. It should be noted that the IC report itself was a singular event, contrary to the IC practice of never disclosing publicly its conclusions.
After the election, we know that President Obama instructed his administration to distribute the intelligence about Russian collusion as widely as possibly (while still maintaining security), so that it would be impossible for the incoming Trump administration to bury the issue. So the release of the IC report on January 6 may be the result of a decision within the President’s authority, not a rogue operation launched from within the IC.
There is nothing unprecedented about the IC disclosing conclusions. Declassified versions of parts of National Intelligence Estimates and other documents are often released.
mpainter: “It is easy to conclude that the U.S. IC and Comey coordinated on a campaign to publicly discredit and undermine Trump on the eve of his inauguration.”
We should also remember that President Obama ordered the IC to brief President Trump about the Steele Dossier and other information that was circulating in the press and in Congress – allegedly so he would be prepared to deal with its likely disclosure. In earlier comment, I made an argument – albeit not widely accepted – that many departing Obama political appointees were more likely than Comey or the professional IC to disclose that briefing to CNN.
For all we know, President Obama could have authorized release of information about Mr. Trump, but hoped he could avoid the blame. Scooter Libby was authorized by Cheney to leak information about Valerie Plame in the absurd hope that it would discredit public statements made by her husband.
the IC also issued an unclassified assessment on the 2013 Ghouta chemical incident and subsequently on the 2017 Khan Sheikhoun chemical incident. My interest in Syria arose because I searched for another example of an intel assessment besides the unsatisfying intel assessment on the DNC hack, thus encountering another very unsatisfying intel assessment and prompting an interest in the Syria situation, which I presently believe to be very different from the situation presented by US administrations and media, which in this latter case, do little more than PR for the US military and intelligence agencies.
Frank, there will be verification of the claims of Assange and Murray, rest assured. See my comment concerning Rohrabacher at the bottom of the thread.
Concerning Obama’s involvement, I feel assured that the truth on that will also emerge.
Concerning Scooter Libby, he was convicted of a crime regarding his exposure of Plame. and sentenced to prison. Did he actually commit the crime at the “authorization” of Cheney?
Steve, it’s occurred to me that in each instance POTUS authorized the Intelligence release. Regarding the sarin incidents in Syria, because a “red line” had been crossed and action was considered (but not taken under Obama). Regarding the “Russian interference” IC statement, Obama had determined on the expulsion of Russian diplomats. None of these IC releases were meant as more than public justification, a sort of eyewash. But this raises the question of the reality behind the public posturing.
Nor was the IC release on the DNC hack.
My previous comment is awaiting moderation due to too many links (sources)
Here is backup: https://zerobin.net/?865bb7b798e5a0ab#SW97BXaNwaT8IFWkeLv0JTS8PMNsExToEtpIMWtRDiU=
Lurker, you say “Seems like they Assume that Guccifer 2.0 was part of GRU operation only because they think he was connected to DCLeaks,..”
<<<<<>>>>
But, in the IC assessment which you quote :
“1. Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims about his likely Russian identity throughout the election.”
Note how this simply assumes a Russian identity for G2
Nowhere does the quoted assessment (per Lurker) offer any rationale for such an assumption.
What are we to make of the U.S. intelligence community, given such an example of their work?
I was guessing how IC decided that Guccifer 2.0 was part of GRU/Fancy Bear/APT 28 and not part of FSB/Cosy bear/APT 29.
It seems that based on fact that Guccifer 2 had password to not public part of DCLeaks.com, they assumed this means he admins this page.
And DCLeaks page was attributed to GRU/Fancy Bear/APT 28 previously.
So they just connected those dots based on fallacious arguments. DCLeks shared their passwords with journalists too, so it is possible G2 got that password because he provided documents to DCLeaks, not because he managed that webpage.
http://g-2.space/dcl/
1) The apparent confidence and readiness (worldpress account etc.) of G2 hint at a long preparation time.
2) Adding obvious and absurd Russian metadata to only 4 files does point to a non political hacker – as a joke.
3) Claiming the DNC hack openly and immediately after full target reset on a worldpress site indicates more pride than political angle, as does the lame selection of files.
4) Advantages of super fast attribution of the DNC breach to “Russia”: supply those Democrats with a good deflection away from their own internal troubles; distract from the DNC’s lack of IT security; give private Crowdstrike free global advertisement; please elements in Homeland security who are obsessed with Russia over other treats; make pro Western Ukraine supporters happy.
5) The easy of accessing various servers /e-mail accounts shows the lack of security amongst the US Establishment. 6) The lack of interest of “public” homeland security in the cyber defence of their political “superiors”.
Steve, nice analysis. Question: how do you know the systematic archiving following any saves was a hacker tool rather than a common local backup script running? https://www.organicweb.com.au/15111/general-technology/windows8-batch-backup/
http://alex.boyne-aitken.co.uk/2009/04/06/using-7-zip-and-batch-files-to-perform-backups-automatically/
excellent point. I don’t know this. Will re-consider.
Steve, would you agree that if the meta-data can be analyzed to reveal the fingerprint of an automatic backup script running locally rather than a fingerprint that would be produced by a hacker’s malware that would show the archive source came from an insider?
Ron Graf, one common theory for the Climategate hacker is he obtained the material by accessing a backup server. Historically speaking, backup servers are one of the most common targets for data theft as they often contain more data but have less security. If it turns out the metadata on these files comes from backups being made (which to me seems far more likely than a hacker tool stealing every new document as it got saved), I don’t think that would shed any light on who was responsible for disseminating the material.
I agree that the possibility of a backup server is an interesting point which needs to be considered and might be an alternative explanation to the timestamps, but evaluating the point requires consideration of how the extra copy step would impact the modification times which no one has turned their mind to yet.
First, some backup methodologies create compressed files, rather than mirrors. So it would require that the DNC have some sort of mirror backup – an empirical detail that is not known to us, but is knowable to someone.
Second, does the backup to the mirror use “Windows” copying in which document modification times are preserved or “Unix” copying in which the directory modification time is set to the copy time (using the terms to distinguish copy impacts, rather than to make statements about the server setup.)
If the directory modification time in the destination matches the document modification time, then we’re left with the same problem that we started with: why are the 7z modification times a few minutes after the document modification time?
This leaves an internal backup in which the directory modification time is set to the copying time (“Unix type”), but then requires a Windows-type copying step at exfiltration in which the modification time is preserved. This results in a contradiction, since the most recent copy step for the document subset in question was a Unix-type copy on the same day.
This is obviously fresh territory – maybe someone can think up some other possibility. But, on reflection, I don’t see how invocation of a putative backup server impacts the analysis of the post.
I also thought about a common backup script or system. That would explain a number of files which get copied shortly after creation.
Backup tools may change or set file creation and/or modification times after copy, whereas a hacking tool need not.
And zipping (using ZIP or 7z) is quite common when doing backups.
>> If the directory modification time in the destination matches the document modification time, then we’re left with the same problem that we started with: why are the 7z modification times a few minutes after the document modification time?
That would be the backup script or system in action. First it copies files to a temp directory, then zips them (often before putting the zip on the archive location). Only question is whether this temp directory is on the originating system (probably a Windows or Apple PC or laptop) or on the backup location. In case the backup location is a simple NAS, then the OS of that system typically is Linux, not Windows.
We have: create directory, copy files (1…n), create zip; plus at some time files are moved away from source system (during copy of files or during copy of directory or after creation of zip). Note that the directory times may change simply because the contents have changed (also on Windows).
I would guess that all steps are taken on a Windows machine, after which the zipped files are copied to a Linux NAS. That would be the fastest option.
Slower but also possible is mirroring the files (from Windows) onto the NAS (Linux) directly, where the NAS then creates zip files from the copied directories after some time, then deletes the mirrored directories (or just the files) to free up space.
I am not sure my evidence G2 was Clinton campaign was clear.
1) Guccifer 2.0 takes credit for DNC hack and also that WL will “publish them soon”. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3davvy/guccifer-20-claims-responsibility-for-dnc-hack-releases-documents
2) At that point in time WL had only claimed to be releasing documents “related to Hillary Clinton.” And the news media reported that they were from her bleached private server, mainly because the Assange interviewer wrongly assumed that. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/will-a-wikileaks-email-get-clinton-imprisoned.html
3) Guccifer 2.0 shows unique knowledge that WL was referring to the DNC hacked documents as the upcoming release.
4) Besides the destroyed Clinton server emails that everyone was focused on then there are other email which are better defined as “Clinton related emails” than the DNC hack, the Clinton campaign director, John Podesta’s emails. These were hacked one month before the DNC hack, unbeknownst to all but the Clinton campaign at the time of the WL, DNC and G2 announcements. So, G2 could have been the one to reveal this hack had he done it. He had documents from it. We know this becuase the released some of them on his debut but falsely credits them to the DNC hack.
There is only one actor that could be G2 that would account for the above: the Clinton campaign.
Why would Guccifer 2.0 saying Wikileaks would release the DNC material, after the DNC had already acknowledged it had been hacked by two separate groups, be evidence of anything? Wikileaks had been accused of servicing a Russian agenda, and Russia was just accused of hacking into the DNC servers. It would hardly a stretch to guess the e-mails would show up there.
And it’s not like there was any downside to the statement. Guccifer 2.0 told many lies with little consequence. This was a statement which, even if false, would have been impossible to show as false for at least months (how soon is “soon”?). If it were a guess, it would be one with practically no downside.
I know as soon as I heard the DNC announce it had been hacked by Russians, I expected Wikileaks to publish material from it. I don’t think that’s evidence I had any special knowledge.
Brandon, Julian Assange and Craig Murray both affirmed that the DNC/Podesta material did not come from Russia but a DNC insider who had legal access to the computer.
If this not be true, then you need to show why.
Brandon, you are simply repeating the refrain of the MSM : the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming. Except for you, no one at CA don’t swallow MSM on this:
“I know as soon as I heard the DNC announce it had been hacked by Russians, I expected Wikileaks to publish material from it. I don’t think that’s evidence I had any special knowledge.”
It’s evidence that you have swallowed uncritically the MSM and reflexively exclude any other possibilities.
mpainter, I do not need to prove why something a person says, without offering any evidence, is false. I certainly don’t need to do so in regard to a claim I never said was false.
It is interesting my immediate expectation upon hearing about this story turned out to be completely correct, and you portray that as proof my views are due to close-mindedness/bias/gullibility. I wonder how many correct predictions can be blamed on such.
Brandon, you say “..my immediate expectation upon hearing about this story turned out to be completely correct,..”
===== =====
Ah, you are right because you said it was so, thusly. Mr. “completely correct”.
But, according to Murray and Assange, your assumption that the Russians were the WL source is false. Big problem for you which you simply ignore.
bmcburney, aye. When I saw Wikileaks say they had Clinton-related material they were going to release then a couple days later the DNC announced it had been hacked, it seemed likely the two were connected. And even if they weren’t, Wikileaks publishing one set of material related to Clinton would make it likely they’d be in the market for other material related to Clinton.
mpainter:
I have never said the Russians were the source of Wikileaks, though if I were going to say so, I’d follow it up by saying it is in Wikileaks best interest to deny a connection with Russia, and I have no reason to doubt Julian Assange would lie about this, particularly if he thought doing so would protect a source. He has certainly misled people about things before (as demonstrated in this very fork).
But I wouldn’t say that sort of thing as I don’t claim to know Russia was the source of this material. What I will say is absent any evidence, I have no reason to believe a person when they claim their source of evidence is what they claim it was.
Brandon, if I understand you correctly, you now admit that your assumption was incorrect that the Russians were the WL source.
mpainter, that understanding cannot possibly be based on what I’ve written so I have no idea how you’ve reached it. You would likely find things work better for you if you tried to read what people say instead of what you imagine them to say.
Well, Brandon, so far you neither repudiate nor deny that Russia is the WL source, having above stated your assumption that Russia was indeed the source, according to your reflexive response. You, yourself seem to have a problem understanding what you mean.
You say: “…it is in Wikileaks best interest to deny a connection with Russia, and I have no reason to doubt Julian Assange would lie about this,…”.
==== ====
So Craig Murray and Julian Assange both are li*ars except maybe they are telling the truth this time?
AntonyIndia, I don’t know why you ask a question like that. I said if Wikileaks had any integrity, they would have contacted the DNC about its breach. I then said I’d be willing to bet money Wikileaks contacted the DNC about their breach. That means I said I’d be willing to bet money Wikileaks did what they would do if they had any integrity (while offering an additional reason they may have done it).
I don’t see how you take that as me saying Wikileaks did not have integrity. Me saying I’m willing to bet Wikileaks did the right thing should not be evidence I think Wikileaks lacks integrity.
“I know as soon as I heard the DNC announce it had been hacked by Russians, I expected Wikileaks to publish material from it. I don’t think that’s evidence I had any special knowledge.”
Indeed, especially since Wikileaks announced they had documents before the DNC announced they were hacked.
Oops, didn’t see this was in a separate fork bmcburney. My response is above.
“When I saw Wikileaks say they had Clinton-related material they were going to release then a couple days later the DNC announced it had been hacked, it seemed likely the two were connected.”
Of course, since the DNC was also aware the Wikileaks announcement and would have been interested in finding something to discredit it, the announcement and especially the Russian attribution was very much in their interest. At a minimum then, they are extremely fortunate that G2 came along in short order to validate the claim. My impression is that most hackers are not quite so accommodating.
“…most hackers are not quite so accommodating.”
==== =======
Especially on timing. G2 appeared the day after the CrowdStrike announcement that the Russians had raided the DNC computer. This created a controversy on the heels of the first news, and the controversy continued, with reminders from G2 to keep it in before the public, accomodatingly. This all smacks of orchestrated publicity. Accommodating also in how the clumsiness of G2 tilted the field against him. Quite a controversy. Accommodatingly resolved against the claims of G2, so it seems to many.
bmcburney, I’m not sure Guccifer 2.0 coming along, identifying himself as the hacker and explicitly stating he was not Russian validated the DNC claim to have been hacked by Russians. If anything, I suspect Guccifer 2.0 claiming not to be Russian cast more doubt on the narrative of Russian hacking than there would have been otherwise. Without Guccifer 2.0’s involvement, there would have been nothing to cast doubt on the idea the Russians were involved when the DNC first made its announcement.
I just don’t see how people would have been less inclined to believe the Russian narrative if the DNC and Crowdstrike were saying it was Russians and nobody else had information/evidence they could use to disagree.
Brandon,
Obviously, your description of the circumstances omits G2’s deliberate adoption of the “Russian Whiskers” and his claim (denied by Wikileaks) to be the Wikileaks source. If these facts are included the meaningful portion of the “Russian narrative” falls apart and the fact that “people” are less inclined to believe it is easy to understand.
I assume, and I think every sensible person assumes, that the “Russian Intelligence Community” has been hacking or attempting to hack the DNC and others since the internet was invented. If the “Russian narrative” claims stopped with an assertion that the Russians hacked the DNC, I think this would not provoke much controversy. Based on the available evidence I, personally, believe those claims to be unfounded (because APT28 and APT29 tools are now available to all) but the “Russian hacking” conclusion, taken in isolation, is certainly plausible.
But the claims don’t stop there and would not have much salience if they did. It is not merely a “Russian hacking” narrative but a “Russian election hacking” narrative which has produced the hysteria and investigations. For that, G2 must be Russian and must be the Wikileaks source but, in fact, he is neither. G2’s nominal claim to be Romanian is obviously preposterous and I find it hard to believe that it was made with the expectation that anyone would believe it. G2’s whiskers are obviously not an accident are the only connection between Russian hacking, which must occur all the time, and “unprecedented” Russian attempts to influence the 2016 US Presidential election.
Brandon, if you go back and read the news of June 14, 2016, the day of the DNC announcement the Russians hacked them, and one day before G2 claims credit, I challenge you to find a single article that says that connects the two. This is because the MSM on the WL June 12 news parroted mistaken reports that Assange claimed he had Clinton private server hacked emails. This is because Assange’s interviewer jumped that conclusion and Assange could not correct his as he is careful not to confirm and deny anything more than he planned to announce.
bmcburney, Crowdstrike and the DNC had said the Russians were behind the hack before Guccifer 2.0 showed up. If he had never shown up, what would lhave played out is: 1) The DNC announces it had been hacked by the Russians; 2) Wikileaks post material stolen from the DNC. That’d create a very simple narrative nobody would have any real basis to challenge. I don’t see why Guccifer 2.0’s appearance helps it.
If the DNC announces Russians hacked them then material from their servers is released, the natural conclusion the public would draw is, the Russians released the material.
While you may believe he is neither, it is not a “fact” that he is neither.
The groups identified as APT-28 and APT-29 have used many, many different tools. I’m not sure what you mean when you say they “are now available to all.” Are you saying every tool they use is publicly available? If so, that strains credulity. The groups have been known to use a variety of zero day exploits, meaning unless they’ve run out, they have tools the public does not have access to. Even ignoring zero day exploits, we don’t even know all the tools these groups use so it’d be impossible to know all their tools are publicly available.
I agree with Brandon on this point.
BTW here’s an interesting 2015 article in which one security analyst argues that a widely publicized attribution of an “APT28” incident to Russia was actually a Nigerian phishing scam. There are some interesting downstream connections to this that I’m looking at.
http://krebsonsecurity.com/2015/05/security-firm-redefines-apt-african-phishing-threat/
Ron Graf, you can challenge me to find examples of the media being intelligent all you want, but I can’t say I’m interested. That the media didn’t make a connection I made instantly doesn’t mean the connection was difficult to make. If it was obvious to me, I am confident it was obvious to many other people. That remains true even if the media is, in general, lazy and dumb.
Brandon and Steve,
The existing “Russian election hacking” narrative is impossible without G2 because nobody at the DNC or Crowdstrike has any basis for claiming that a Russian hacker is the Wikileaks source. The DNC/Crowdstrike can only properly claim that the DNC was hacked which, although plausible, doesn’t prove there wasn’t a leak. It doesn’t even make a leak less likely. I have no doubt that the DNC’s approved narrative would find supporters among true believers but it wouldn’t convince anyone who wasn’t already a committed supporter.
Your assertion that “nobody would have any real basis to challenge” the “simple narrative” is obviously false. Wikileaks has explicitly and consistently claimed the source is a leaker, not a hacker. Not only does Wikileaks have a basis for contradicting the DNC’s “simple narrative” it is the ONLY entity in the entire world which has any basis for making any statement about the Wikileaks source. This is why it is possible to state, as a fact, that the Wikileaks source is not a hacker and is not a Russian. The burden is on you to find any evidence (outside of G2’s assertions and the “Russian whiskers”) which proves Wikileaks is lying. I contend there is none. Absent G2’s timely appearance (and timely disappearance), the actual situation would be exactly the opposite of the situation you describe above; nobody would have any real basis to challenge Wikileaks’ attribution.
It is certainly possible that APT28 and APT29 have tools which are not already known and, although there is no evidence suggesting any such thing, I obviously cannot contradict your speculation that tools not previously attributed to APT28 and APT29 were found on the DNC’s servers. If this occurred, however, Crowdstrike would not be able to attribute the hack or the use of the unknown tools to APT28 and APT29. THIS IS WHY REPUTABLE CYBER SECURITY FIRMS DON’T MAKE ATTRIBUTIONS. Honestly, I think if Crowdstrike told you they invented a time machine which allowed them to attribute the Kennedy assassination to Elvis Presley you would contend that the “simple narrative” must be true since we have no definitive evidence that Elvis wasn’t on the grassly knoll.
There’s a very important element in the development in the story that you’re overlooking in this summary. The earliest memoranda in the fraudulent Steele Dossier purported to link Russia – and indeed Putin personally – to the DNC hack, as well as purporting to link the Trump campaign to collusion to hack the DNC. I am convinced that these fraudulent memoranda were the supersecret “intelligence” alluded to in the June 23 WaPo story on Brennan’s and Obama admin’s hair-on-fire investigation of the Trump campaign commencing August 2016, ultimately leading to the October 6, 2016 IC “assessment”.
I think that the dossier was far more important to “attribution” than G2, whose evidence was either secondary or disregarded by the IC. I am also convinced that the IC assessment does not have any smoking communications evidence and instead relies entirely on “expert” judgement using unworthy evidence and totally without merit.
Brandon Scholenberger: “bmcburney, Crowdstrike and the DNC had said the Russians were behind the hack before Guccifer 2.0 showed up. If he had never shown up, what would lhave played out is: 1) The DNC announces it had been hacked by the Russians; 2) Wikileaks post material stolen from the DNC. That’d create a very simple narrative nobody would have any real basis to challenge. I don’t see why Guccifer 2.0’s appearance helps it.”
=== ===== ===
No, it would not have played that way. G2 was instrumental in magnifying the DNC event and fixing in the public mind that the Wikileaks source was a hack by a Russian operative. Remember, U.S. IC public conclusion that G2. was Russian intelligence operative, this conclusion on flimsy basis. Now do you see?
Brandon, you say “.. we don’t even know all the tools these groups use so it’d be impossible to know all their tools are publicly available.”
=== === ===
Yet CrowdStrike identified the DNC hacker as Russian intelligence based on the tools used. I think that it can be concluded that CrowdStrike is either dishonest or incompetent. Your assertion that “we don’t even know” flies in the face of CrowdStrike’s positive declaration that it was the Russians.
Brandon: “I just don’t see how people would have been less inclined to believe the Russian narrative if the DNC and Crowdstrike were saying it was Russians and nobody else had information/evidence they could use to disagree.”
I hope you would agree the DNC was not compelled to announce they were hacked just as they were not compelled to allow the FBI to investigate it. The timing of their announcement, being just two days after Assange’s announcement shows a considered reaction to control the narrative because they had knowledge that the leaks were in fact not Clinton server as reported, Clinton campaign or some other Clinton emails, but the DNC emails. With Trump’s and Putin’s glowing comments about each other, Clinton had a perfect opportunity to smear Trump by connecting him through Russia to the WL, especially since the DNC likely was truly hacked by Russia (Cozy Bear). It is very similar to Clinton’s quick thinking during the Benghazi when (mid-attack) she floated the idea that it could be flagged as a protest since there truly was a protest in Egypt a day earlier, even Victoria Nuland said no, it’s an attack.
G2 serves to solidly sinks the hook in the media connecting the DNC hack to the WL story and also to Russia. Crowdstrike and DNC aid this by including a specific piece of evidence, that Fancy Bear only exfiltrated the Trump oppo, the same document G2 releases the next day, along with other documents that one would only know were not connected to the DNC WL five weeks later when WL published the DNC leak.
Brandon, the G2 appearance, along with the Steele dossier, in hindsight, to me, is very transparent. I’m sorry you see it all as unconnected coincidences.
bmcburney, I guess you and I just will not agree on this issue. I don’t think Guccifer 2.0’s involvement pushed the Russia narrative to any meaningful extent, and I don’t think your view of how people would have reacted is plausible. If the DNC announced Russia hacked it then Wikileaks released material from the DNC, I don’t think average people would consider ideas like you suggest.
I think it is completely farfetched to suggest the general population would have seriously considered the idea Russia hacked the DNC but then a separate person leaked material Russia could have stolen. The idea only a person who was “already a committed supporter” would make believe Wikileaks got its material from Russia seems absurd. I suspect this speaks toward a bias on your part more than a bias on anyone else’s. Consider how you say:
Previously, you described it as a fact Guccifer 2.0 was not the Wikileaks source. That was untrue. Similarly, here you say Wikileaks has a basis for claiming their source wasn’t RUssia, but that’s only true if their source was not Russia. Your statements here rest on the assumption Russia was not the source, an assumption you present as fact like you did before. You seem to defend this behavior by saying:
But that is not remotely reasonable. That Wikileaks claims its source was not Russia in no way means it is okay to claim it is a fact Russia was not the source. That you seem to believe it is suggests your statements about other people’s bias may stem in part from projection.
I never speculated anything of the sort. You seem determined to paint people whose views you disagree with as biased, to the point where you imagine they say things which they’ve never said just to support that view. If you wish to imagine I said things I’ve never even hinted at in order to decide I’m close-minded, you can, but I think you’ll just be wasting everyone’s time.
Steve I’ve a comment held in moderation. If you can’t find it, I’ll repost it, thanks.
Ron Graf:
I wouldn’t agree as I think the DNC was perfectly capable of making the same connection I made, and I am certain any competent cybersecurity company would. I can’t imagine why you would believe neither Crowdstrike nor the DNC would guess Wikileaks had DNC material. That media reports didn’t figure it out in no way means people intimately involved in the issue could not.
Even if I accepted the premise the DNC must have had some source of information like you suggest, I wouldn’t consider that evidence of any involvement on their part. It is quite common for people to talk to those they are going to report on in advance. Even when that isn’t done in an official sense, gossip and backchannel communication is commonplace in politics and journalism.
Heck, if Wikileaks has any integrity, it would have contacted the DNC upon receiving the material to make sure the DNC knew it had been hacked. Anything else would be unethical. It’s not just a matter of integrity either. If Wikileaks failed to inform the DNC of the breach and it turned out the DNC was unaware, allowing the breach to continue, Wikileaks could be criminally liable an accessory. I’d bet money not only did Wikileaks contact the DNC, but them doing so played a role in the DNC announcing it had been hacked.
I find it remarkable how discussions of these issues are playing out given “skeptics” raised hell when people labeled them conspiracy theorists. You can be as “sorry” as you want in your condescending manner, but the reality is you have nothing resembling a coherent case for the views you scorn others for not sharing.
Brandon: “I’d bet money not only did Wikileaks contact the DNC, but them doing so played a role in the DNC announcing it had been hacked.”
Save your money. Assange’s first rule is not to endanger his sources. I could just imaging Assange trying to extract a promise from Debbie W Schultz to not go to police or media or take any action against a leaker, which is what he strenuously maintains was not a hacker, and definitely not Russian.
The reason the DNC would not allow the FBI access to their server is because that is where the trail begins to the identity of the leaker. If the only evidence of intrusion were Apt 28/29 they would gladly turn it over, especially at the DNC convention when WL embarrassed them or now when they are under completely different leadership. Actually, Mueller should be demanding it now to build Russia evidence for case against Trump.
Brandon,
Demanding integrity on US cyber issues from a foreign entity like Wikileaks? They will follow the lead on cyber integrity from the NSA, CIA, FBI etc. whenever they start I guess. Could be long wait as they mislead (+ illegally spied upon) Congress, the Senate, the US public, friendly foreign governments & their leaders etc.
“Unethical” does not exist in Homeland Security’s dictionary: Wikileaks can only have > 0 ethics.
Steve,
I have not “overlooked” the Steele dossier, I just don’t see how it can be relevant to the subject under discussion.
I also suspect that the Steele dossier was an important impetus for the FBI’s investigation prior to the election (although I don’t see how we can know that since the FBI refuses to share that information even with Congress). As it circulated behind the scenes among anti-Trump politicians and journalists I can see how it might have “tilted” news coverage against Trump (although coverage was already quite tilted without it). However, the Steele dossier was only made public on January 10, 2017, so I don’t see how it could possibly contribute to the “simple narrative” which Brandon espouses.
leaving aside issues related to the “simple narrative”, I think that there is substantial evidence that early memoranda from the Steele dossier were given to CIA and FBI and that they were relied on by CIA and FBI. It is possible to discern its effect in some news articles based on leaks. The argument is an interesting narrative that I’ve been meaning to write up. It’s a narrative that also underpins the argument that Comey misled and deceived Trump right from the outset.
Ron Graf, notifying a person or organization their system has been breached does not endanger a source. Competent journalists go to the owner of leaked/hacked/whatever material they receive before running a story. Suggesting Wikileaks would do the same is hardly remarkable. As for your claim to know the only reason the DNC would not turn over servers is what you say, let’s just say you don’t know anywhere near as much about things as you seem to think you do. That the DNC turned over image files of their drives is completely reasonable image files are what forensic analyses are done on (except in certain extreme scenarios).
AntonyIndia, I haven’t demanded integrity from Wikileaks. I simply pointed out what they would do if they had any integrity was contact the DNC to notify it material had been stolen from their network so that they could secure it. I then pointed out even if Wikileaks had no integrity, they would likely still do this to avoid legal liability.
B. Sholenberger says:”I then pointed out even if Wikileaks had no integrity, they would likely still do this to avoid legal liability.”
=== ==== ===
Not hardly. Show me a journalist or a media source that has such concerns. There is no “legal liability” involved.
Also: “I simply pointed out what they would do if they had any integrity was contact the DNC to notify it material had been stolen from their network so that they could secure it.”
=== ==== ====
“So they could secure it” as when the DNC summoned CrowdStrike who watched for a month while daily material was heisted from their server.
And who, besides yourself, says that Wikileaks lacks integrity or that Julian Assange and Craig Murray are li*ars?
Brandon,
I suppose we all have our biases and blind spots. Rather than have our discussion devolve into name calling and competitive psychoanalysis, let’s try and concentrate on what the evidence tells us regarding our dispute.
You initially claimed that “nobody would have any real basis to challenge” the “simple narrative” that Russian intelligence was the Wikileaks source. In response, I pointed out that Wikileaks not only had a “basis” to challenge the DNC’s “narrative” regarding that point, they actually did so. In response you assert “that’s only true if their source was not Russia.” Nonsense. Wikileaks obviously has better information that anyone else regarding the identity of the Wikileaks source. Under any circumstances, Wikileaks would have a “basis” to challenge the “simple narrative” and the DNC/Crowdstrike would literally have no “basis” to deny anything Wikileaks said on the subject.
Let’s look at the problem a little differently. Wikileaks says the source is not Russia, is there anyone who claims otherwise? As far as I know, the answer is “no, nobody”, not even the DNC, not even the FBI, not even Brandon Shollenberger has any reason to believe Russia was the source of the Wikileaks DNC release. Indeed, the only fact or circumstance which suggests that Russia is the Wikileaks source is G2’s “Russian whiskers” (even G2 claims he is not Russian). So, against whatever probative value you may find in the “Russian whiskers” we have Wikileaks’ statements, the timing of the selection and exfiltration of documents in the Wikileaks DNC archive from the DNC, the “curation” of documents found in the Wikileaks DNC archive and other matters. Without refuge in petty epistemology I say it is a FACT that Russia was not the Wikileaks DNC source. If you say otherwise, cite your evidence and explain your reasons.
You contend that you “don’t think Guccifer 2.0’s involvement pushed the Russia narrative to any meaningful extent” and that my “view of how people would have reacted is [not] plausible.” You contend that as long the DNC claimed it was hacked “average people would [not even] consider ideas like [I] suggest.” You claim that “it is completely farfetched to suggest the general population would have seriously considered the idea” You say “I suspect this speaks toward a bias on your part more than a bias on anyone else’s.” Unless I am very much mistaken, however, Trump actually won the election and did so despite G2 and the whiskers and the FBI’s farcical investigation and the Steele dossier operating in the background. And if you don’t think G2’s involvement “pushed the Russia narrative to any meaningful extent” why have you spent so much time commenting on this completely “meaningless” event? Why have you been defending the DNC’s “simple narrative” to the last ditch and beyond?
Please re-read you prior comment. You did speculate about unknown tools which APT28 and APT29 might have left on the DNC servers.
McBurney says: ” Without refuge in petty epistemology I say it is a FACT that Russia was not the Wikileaks DNC source. If you say otherwise, cite your evidence and explain your reasons.”
=== === ===
Yes, a fact according to the most authoritative source available. Brandon, once again you are called to cite your reasons why Wikileaks is wrong in this. So far, you offer nothing except to insinuate that Julian Assange is a li*ar.
As in climate, I prefer to focus analysis on points which can be examined factually in the hopes of making some progress on controversy, and, avoid opinions on credibility as much as possible. Obviously there may not be enough open source information to reach a conclusion.
bncburney:
This isn’t true at all. If Russia were in fact the source for Wikileaks in this case, then Wikileaks would have no basis for challenging the narrative which said Russia was its source. That they might better information than anyone else, namely the absolute knowledge Russia was their source, would in no way mean they’d have a basis for challenging a narrative they knew to be true.
This is nonsense. You have nothing but the fact Wikileaks says Russia was not its source as your basis for saying Russia was not its source. That someone says something is true never makes what they say a fact. A person’s testimony may make something probable, or even highly likely, but it can never establish something as fact.
I have no idea how you think this responds to the many claims of mine you quoted. It does not. Whether or not Trump won the election has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.
This is a silly strawman. Whether or not Guccifer 2.0’s interactions with the public and media caused any meaningful increase in how many people believed Russia was involved with Wikileaks publishing this material in no way determines whether or not his actions were “meaningless.” A person could believe his actions were meaningful for many other reasons, including the possibility the person believes Guccifer 2.0’s actions caused people to, overall, doubt that narrative, not believe it. Another reason a person might think Guccifer 2.0’s actions were meaningful is they might believe those actions could help shed light on what really happened. I am sure there are other reasons people might think this issue meaningful. On top of all this, there is no prohibition on people discussing topics they might find interesting, whether or not they believe those topics to be meaningful.
Again, it would help if you read what I say instead of what you imagine I say. I haven’t defended any narrative. Other than repeatedly insisting we must take things as fact simply because Wikileaks says they are true and nobody can prove otherwise, your responses seem to contain little but you misunderstanding/misrepresenting the things I’ve said.
“This is nonsense. You have nothing but the fact Wikileaks says Russia was not its source as your basis for saying Russia was not its source. That someone says something is true never makes what they say a fact. A person’s testimony may make something probable, or even highly likely, but it can never establish something as fact.”
=== ==== ====
Wikileaks is the most authoritative source. If you do not accept their declaration as the truth, then why. For the nth time. The jury accepts testimony as facts and convicts thereupon. That is our position; a jury. Repeat, Wikileaks is the most authoritative source. Both Craig Murray and Julian Assange affirm that it was a DNC insider who leaked the material and that the source was not a Russian hack.
Brandon, — snip
Steve: I havent been diligent in editing snide comments about other commenters, but it’s a longstanding blog policy. Please avoid. Brandon, too, please.
Brandon,
“Assange chastises companies that haven’t responded to CIA vulnerability offers” http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/324749-assange-chastises-companies-who-havent-responded-to-cia-vulnerability
Some vulnerabilities that the CIA hunted for and collected in US software, but did not report to the makers were notified in advance by Wikileaks to them on March 17th 2017. Response from US companies except Mozilla towards Wikileaks: nada. Microsoft murmured a bit towards the CIA.
Who had more integrity here?
> does not have any smoking … evidence and instead relies entirely on “expert” judgement using unworthy evidence and totally without merit.
Sounds like you are speaking from experience.
@ Brandon
{I’m commenting to something you said below, but there is no reply button there …]
>> The groups identified as APT-28 and APT-29 have used many, many different tools.
A common misunderstanding but NO.
An APT# is a pattern of specific tool usage, a process, a fingerprint. They are NOT groups (Surprised? Read on).
In turn such fingerprints (aka IOC or TTP) are assumed to be linked to certain hacker groups (Threat Actors), but such linkage is indirect and uncertain.
So although the term APT was intended to represent a (initially unknown) group, the numbered versions are merely fingerprints.
Because some of the same/similar tools are used by many groups (like the ones that give an APT-28 fingerprint), the attribution to a specific hacker collective can be quite doubtful.
You certainly can’t say that a numbered APT uses ‘many different tools’. Of course each pattern or process may use a set of tools, but any numbered APT always uses the same set. After all it is the fingerprint of the set of tools used which indicates which APT#.
The same APT# can be faked by other groups (e.g. NSA and CIA are both known to be able to do this, see the leaks of their tool-set, look for ‘attribution’).
They can also be faked by firms like Crowdstrike. But it’s not so easy to fake install such tool-sets (really install, but fake the timeline or method of entry or just fake some of the side effects). Hence the fact that the FBI forensic team was not allowed access to the DNC servers is very troubling. At the very least it means that there is no valid evidence which can be used in court, so if the DNC has really been hacked they have made certain that the hackers can never be prosecuted….
>> [The groups identified as APT-28 and APT-29 have used many, many different tools.] I’m not sure what you mean when you say they “are now available to all.” Are you saying every tool they use is publicly available? If so, that strains credulity.
All of the tools used IN the fingerprints APT-28 and APT-29 are known, because it is that specific set which defines them.
So anyone who likes to act like them can do that. Anyone who likes to use some part of their tools can also do that, as the programs or code they use is (to a large extent) in public domain. Of course in both cases that person must really know what they are doing. Some parts of re-use may be a bit tricky, say an IP address/domain.
An extended example, including setting up a fake domain linked to APT-28 (which example funny enough is now really linked to APT-28 …) is here: https://blog.0day.rocks/lets-get-fancy-with-false-flags-28eaabefeff6
Jaap Titulaer:
This is not really true. There is no formal body which decides what is and is not an APT. There isn’t even a formal definition of what qualifies as an APT. Some people might wish APTs were limited to what you describe, but the reality is that’s not how the term is widely used. At it stands, the use of APTs to identify groups is widely accepted.
In fact, I’m not sure the term was ever accepted to mean what you claim as The APT1 report by Mandiant specified the APT it discussed as a group, one it suggested was linked to the Chinese army. FireEye’s report naming APT-28 identifies it as a “threat group,” repeatedly referring to it as a group of people with motivations and human characteristics. In fact, the report refers to the APT’s malware and how the group has modified and updated it over the years, making your claim:
Simply incorrect. Whether you like my usage or not, it is what is commonly used. My reference to APT-28 as a group is perfectly in line with how APT-28 was defined from day one. I haven’t read the report defining APT-29, but I imagine it is no different in this regard.
Brandon, a fingerprint suggests exclusivity. I believe they would be more correctly called a modus operandi because it could be used by anyone with access to the required tools. Were the tools used the exclusive property of any alleged “group”? If not, it could have been anyone.
At one time, it is highly likely that the APTs did exclusively belong to a certain group, but once they’re out in the wild, they no longer represent a group, just a method.
DaveJR, the “fingerprints” used in creating APTs go beyond simple tools and methodologies. It might be possible to convince people an attack was carried out by a particular APT via deception, doing so would not be as simple as using the same malware as those groups.
But the point at hand is not about that. The point at hand is a number of people are falsely claiming APT-28/APT-29 refer to tools used in certain attacks. That is simply not true. APT-28 and APT-29 are identified as groups, not inanimate tools. The tools, methodologies and targets of those groups (and other things) are used to find patterns in order to attribute attacks to those groups, but the APTs are the groups themselves.
That said, if you want to look at the “fingerprint” metaphor, consider how fingerprints are used as evidence in criminal investigations. When using databases, patterns in a fingerprint found at a crime scene are compared to patterns found in fingerprints stored in databases. Potential matches are spat out by the computer, and then an expert manually examines the two data sets and decides if they are a match. When a fingerprint found at a crime scene is compared to a specific person, an expert examines both data sets and decides if they are a match.
In forensics, recovered fingerprints are not an absolute that clearly match. They are sets of data examined for similarities. The more similarities there are, the more certain the expert is of these being a match. The same is true in cyberattacks. Attribution isn’t made just by what tool was used in an attack. Many different points of data are examined, and it is how the total data sets line up that determines if there is or is not a match.
(Of course, like anything, the experts making these calls can make mistakes/be biased etc.)
If one considers the totality of APT28-APT29 behavior as their fingerprint – as Brandon reasonably argues, then one also has to include the fact that (to my knowledge) they’ve never released emails or documents to the public. In early discussion of the matter – before hysteria, many people presumed that DNC’s security was so abysmal that they’d probably been hacked, but considered that it was also possible that Wikileaks source was not APT28-APT29.
As I recall, leaks leading up to the intel assessment were that they’d be able to exactly trace, naming names, how the documents got from hackers to Wikileaks, but the actual assessment was a nothingburger on this aspect.
Brandon is essentially correct until he get’s to the part where he makes the analogy to fingerprint analysis. That’s BS. A modus operandi is not a fingerprint. End of story.
I will help you. The best evidence supporting the high confidence in identifying the hackers is coming from signal intelligence.
The article relies on a supposed attribution by Crowdstrike of a supposed hack of Ukrainian artillery. That’s been thoroughly discredited by Jeffrey Carr and others as another bogus Alperovitch assertion.
It has been frequently asserted that NSA ought to be able to locate exfiltration but they’ve never produced the evidence. I recently quoted a knowledgeable specialist who concluded that the attribution had ultimately relied on human intelligence. Which implies reliance on the Steele Dossier.
Unclassified intel assessments tend to imply/state access to NSA. However, in the intel assessment of 2013 Ghouta chemical incident, the intel assessment made assertions about rocket origins which were subsequently shown from open source information to be flatly wrong.
Brandon says “The tools, methodologies and targets of those groups (and other things) are used to find patterns in order to attribute attacks to those groups, but the APTs are the groups themselves”
No longer,Brandon. Things have changed and no longer can particular tools and methods being confidently attributed to a specific group. For example, no longer can the APT 28 tools and methods being attributed to the GRU with confidence, CrowdStrike’s self promotions notwithstanding.
Steve says “…thoroughly discredited by Jeffrey Carr and others as another bogus Alperovitch assertion.”
=== === ===
I recall reading that Alperovitch has retracted his claims in that artillery affair. He made the mistake of pronouncing on a matter that could be investigated by others.
Steve, the article said:
“After a security company proved there’s a link between the malware used against the DNC and cyber attacks against the Ukrainian army, a new report reveals the actual reason why the NSA knows whenever Russia hacks the US. And yes, it’s as scary as you’d expect it to be.”
The “new report” reveals the “actual reason”. NSA signals intelligence. The NSA is not going to reveal the evidence. The new report is not connected to the Ukrainian BS. Did you read the article beyond that paragraph? Snowden revealed their methods. But they still are not going to confirm it.
As I have mentioned before, the FBI notified DNC back in Sept 2015, that they were being attacked by Russians. FBI repeated those warnings to DNC up until the time the DNC finally realized they were hacked. The FBI warnings were based on NSA sigint.
I remember the quote you recently cited. I re-quoted it, including the part you left off. I don’t recall that the quote mentioned the Steele dossier or said that the assessment had ultimately relied on human intel. Don’t you mean you inferred reliance on the Steel dossier?
Do you have some evidence that the 2013 Ghouta assessment reflects badly on NSA sigint, in relation to tracking down hackers?
I would like to see the actual evidence that NSA, CYBERCOM, CCIC, DHS, CIA and whatever relied upon, but they ain’t going to show it. They have taken oaths to keep their methods and the specifics of what they know secret. Spook stuff. If they have something that points to someone other than the Russians, I think Trump would order them to reveal it. So, I am currently satisfied that it was probably the Russians. I haven’t seen any convincing evidence pointing to anyone else. Please show it if you got it.
Steve, my reply to you went into moderation. I can usually figure out why and modify. Not this time. Please check it.
Add on to comment in moderation:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/09/nsa-director-rogers-says-no-reduction-in-russian-attempts-to-interfere-in-elections.html
“During further questioning, Rogers said the National Security Agency became aware of Russian attempts to interfere with political institutions in the summer of 2015.
He said that when he came aware of Russian actions, he informed the FBI, and also in his role as head of the U.S. Cyber Command, informed the Pentagon to make sure its systems were optimized in order to be able to withstand such an attack.”
This is related to the FBI informing DNC of Russian attacks in Sept. 2015, and several times after that.
Steve McIntyre:
This seems strange as one of the more notable things attributed to APT-28 was the theft of medical documents from various athletes held by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). A day after the attack was acknowledged by WADA, a site whose name and title identified its creators as FancyBear (APT-28) came online.
The site made a statement claiming people cheated to win in the Olympics. To support this, it provided documents for several American athletes who competed in the 2016 Olympics, falsely alleging them to have been guilty of doping. Documents for athletes from other countries were released in several batches in the weeks which followed. The WADA has stated some of these documents were altered/falsified.
That was in September of 2016, mere months after the DNC hack was announced. It is one of the few attacks attributed to APT-28 known to involve the theft of documents, and it had more than a passing similarity to the DNC incident. Additionally, the WADA was only targeted after it recommended Russian athletes be barred from an event due to the widespread doping of their athletes.
That seems like the sort of thing anyone talking about attribution of attacks to APT-28/APT-29 should be aware of.
fair response. Are there any other such incidents to your knowledge?
(I’ll try this again)
Steve, the article said:
“After a security company proved there’s a link between the malware used against the DNC and cyber attacks against the Ukrainian army, a new report reveals the actual reason why the NSA knows whenever Russia hacks the US. And yes, it’s as scary as you’d expect it to be.”
The “new report” reveals the “actual reason”. NSA signals intelligence. The NSA is not going to reveal the evidence. The new report is not connected to the Ukrainian story. Did you read the article beyond that paragraph? Snowden revealed their methods. But they still are not going to confirm it.
As I have mentioned before, the FBI notified DNC back in Sept 2015, that they were being attacked by Russians. FBI repeated those warnings to DNC up until the time the DNC finally realized they were penetrated. The FBI warnings were based on NSA sigint.
I remember the quote you recently cited. I re-quoted it, including the part you left off. I don’t recall that the quote mentioned the Steele dossier or said that the assessment had ultimately relied on human intel. Don’t you mean you inferred reliance on the Steel dossier?
Do you have some evidence that the 2013 Ghouta assessment reflects badly on NSA sigint capabilities, in relation to tracking down the DNC perps?
I would like to see the actual evidence that NSA, CYBERCOM, CCIC, DHS, CIA and whatever relied upon, but they ain’t going to show it. They have taken oaths to keep their methods and the specifics of what they know secret. If they have something that points to someone other than the Russians, I think Trump would order them to reveal it. So, I am currently satisfied that it was probably the Russians. I haven’t seen any convincing evidence pointing to anyone else. Please show it if you got it.
Steve McIntyre:
Nope. I don’t know of any other confirmed cases of APT-28 successfully pulling off an attack which involved stealing any documents (confirmed as in confirmed documents were stolen, not that the attribution was necessarily correct). The other attacks I know of attributed to APT-28 either weren’t reported as having been a success or involved sabotage instead of theft. For APT-29, I know of no examples (unless one counts the DNC case).
The groups could have carried out attacks that haven’t been publicized, and it’s possible there are publicized cases I’ve missed. As it stands though, these are the only two cases I know of where either group was publicly said to have stolen any material. In both cases, a day after the announcement, a new web site popped up and documents started being shared.
That’s nothing conclusive, and what I find more interesting is the lack of examples. I think it’s interesting how few publicized examples there are of APT-28/APT-29 succeeding in attacks. most reports are about attempts, with no report of success. Are these groups getting away with attacks, are they not succeeding much or is this a case of most attacks not getting reported?
Thanks Dave, that is exactly what I was trying to say. And yeah modus operandi is a better term.
Once an APT# is made public you can no longer be sure that any subsequent activity with the same ‘modus operandi’ really is the same group. Prior to publication it is a good guess, but not thereafter.
The security companies issue bulletins among each other and later publicly to their clients. Next come discussions on the attacks by APT-x on congresses. By this time the approach is in the wild and can no longer be associated with any group with any kind of certainty.
Apparently APT-28 has now become conflated with the (probably) Nigerian phishing scams and with a (French? Pakistani? Iranian?) C&C server (176.31.112.10) which was used in the attack against the Bundestag (see https://netzpolitik.org/2015/digital-attack-on-german-parliament-investigative-report-on-the-hack-of-the-left-party-infrastructure-in-bundestag/).
That conflation stems from the (bad) ‘research’ done by root9B.
And see also in general what Carr had to say about the fingerprint parts (from https://medium.com/@HFINetwork/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f):
Jaap Titulaer, that quote from Jeffrey Carr is one of the many examples of him relying upon obvious misdirections. He says:
Trusting that both of the sources he cite actually have obtained a copy of the code, what that shows is merely that sources other than APT-28 have obtained copies of the code. That does not show anyone other than APT-28 has developed or used the code. In terms of hte latter, it is important to note Carr ignores a qualifier Crowdstrike included when making this claim – in the public record.
CrowdStrike said there is no public record of anyone but APT-28 using or developing certain software. That some other people have obtained copies of the code does not mean prove what CrowdStrike said wrong. In fact, that those are the best examples Carr can come up with indicates CrowdStrike’s claim is true.
Whether or not one finds Crowdstrike’s argument convincing, distorting it in such an obvious way to claim we know it to be false is silly. But that’s always been Carr’s modus operandi. He doesn’t know anywhere near as much as he pretends. Misrepresenting things in trivially obvious ways is how he gets by.
Brandon, your reasoning fails, it seems. CrowdStrike’s qualifier of “no public record” of any user other than APT 28 is circular since they identify as APT 28 all instances of certain malware. You missed that circularity. In short, CrowdStrike ignores the fact that APT malware is “in the wild”, as do you. And really, that is what sustains your arguments in this matter: your pretense that APT 28 malware is somehow still not available worldwide.
Also, “no public record” is a pretty narrow scope. Successful use of any malware does not enter the public record.
To finish my comment, Carr’s reasoning is sound. He shows that it is no longer possible to attribute certain malware activities to specific “groups” with any confidence, your pretense that he is arguing a different conclusion notwithstanding. Carr is right.
Here is what Carr probably was talking about when he said a security company had the source code. Or perhaps it is just yet another example…
En Route with Sednit
Part 2: Observing the Comings and Goings
by ESET
October 2016
What ESET calls the Sednit group is also known as APT28, Fancy Bear and Sofacy.
Xagent is described starting at page 10 of this report. On page 11 it is noted that this is what was found in 2016 at the DNC.
Now please look at page 12:
And later on page 13:
So sometime before, or at the latest in, October 2016 ESET already has full source code for the Linux version of Xagent.
And numerous security companies have various binary examples of Xagent.
This means that any group with access to what these security companies have or who collect malware in a similar way as to what these companies do will have access to Xagent. The companies get binary examples not just from customers who’ve become victim, but also by using special victim PC’s that connect to known malicious websites in order to get infected.
Such binaries can often be re-used as they work using external parameters (e.g. IP & port of the C&C server).
And if not, no worries. Binary versions can be decompiled, changed and recompiled.
Compilation from the actual source code is of course even simpler…
Here’s another one, also using Xagent, this is on the Android malware used against Ukraine, so attribution to Russia is likely, but was it APT 28? Focal Point doubts that.
Focal Point Releases Malware Analysis of Android X-Agent Implant
May 2017
Details about this are in their report (bottom of web-page).
Here is what they say on page 22 (I can’t copy & paste it, as it is secured; all typos are mine).
Then it discusses the ESET october 2016 report.
Jaap Titulaer, once again, thanks.
Rather startling claim that “X-Agent” has been in the wild for five years.
Jaap, if I were a campaign manager, and I found out my servers had been hacked, I would not hand over the server to the FBI for examination. There is too much on there, that I would not trust would stay within the investigation instead of being leaked by a partisan working for the FBI.
Steve,
“My own working hypothesis is that G2 was a lone wolf hacker. This is a surmise only. This surmise is NOT proven by the analysis provided above, but I do not believe that it is inconsistent with the information marshalled here. I’ll try to outline why I believe G2 to have been a lone wolf hacker on another occasion.”
The Adam Carter analysis still seems more convincing to me. If G2 was a lone wolf hacker, the DNC/Crowdstrike has been incredibly lucky. This lone wolf just happened to appear, at just at the right time, with a supply of meaningless DNC documents, a (sanitized?) version of the DNC’s Trump opposition file and a feeble Boris Badenov disguise. I think I will always favor a cui bono analysis over most computer metadata analysis because metadata is so easy to fake.
That having been said, the weakness of any cui bono style analysis is that sometimes coincidences do happen and sometimes people do get lucky (or unlucky). I admit you make a very reasonable case and I now see what you mean about some of these details not really fitting a false flag. I agree it doesn’t “feel” like the metadata discussed in your post has been faked, the observations seem too subtle for that.
I also think there is only one “l” in “marshaled” (unless this is one of those Canadian spelling things).
Hi all. I used to lurk here for years, but backed off some after Climategate confirmed a lot of things many of us suspected. Anyhoo, I know this post is off topic but I didn’t know where or how else to post it. I didn’t want to bother SM with an email, so here goes:
I’m trying to shed some light on the hockey stick controversy with an online acquaintance (of the alarmist variety) who seems willing to look at the details. We are discussing the Wiki article on the HS debate, and the following statement is of current interest: ” McIntyre and McKitrick’s code selected 100 simulations with the highest “hockey stick index” from the 10,000 simulations they had carried out, and their illustrations were taken from this pre-selected 1%.” The footnote for this is Mann’s 2012 book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, pp. 242–243, 362–363. Assuming that is an accurate assessment of what the book says, I have been trying to find any kind of blog post or other info that addresses this point. I’ve been able to find info at CA for every other point up to now, but it seems maybe this quote from Mann’s book was not discussed here.
Does anyone know where SM or RM has responded to Mann’s statement, or if anyone else has replied to it online?
Dan:
Offhand, I don’t know where Steve McIntyre may have discussed this particular issue, but I’ve discussed it a number of times. Nuances and details of what effect this selection criterion had have been discussed as well. The short version is, yes, that paper selected figures which bestshowed the effect in question. The paper did not claim to offer a random sample though. The purpose of the examples was to show what the effect could be in a clear manner.
The point was to show how a process was biased toward “finding” hockey sticks; the point was not to quantify that bias. Using a random sample would have shown the process was biased as well, but the examples wouldn’t have been as clear. Using non-random samples to demonstrate a point like this is fine as long as the authors are clear that they’re not using random samples (which they were in this case).
If people accept the process was biased, then they could argue about how much of an effect that bias has. In that case, using non-random samples could create problems. But when all you’re doing is trying to demonstrate a problem exists, showing the clearest examples of it is reasonable.
Also, if I can be forgiven a bit of self-promotion, I would recommend you and your acquaintance try reading this short eBook I wrote. It doesn’t cover the issue you ask about here, but I believe it is the best introduction to the hockey stick debate available for people new to the topic. If you don’t want to purchase it, a free PDF version can be found here (though it has a couple editing issues not present in the final version).
I wrote it and a follow-up eBook to try to give people an accessible resource for understanding the hockey stick debate. I’d like to think I succeeded.
By the way, if you’d like to see what effect the decision to use a non-random sample had, you should take a look at this post. A frequent critic of our host named Nick Stokes claimed what they did was wrong, created a version of the figure he says is what they should have shown.
In his emulation he allowed hockey sticks which went up or went down. The orientation of principal components (the type of proxy created via this process) is irrelevant to Mann’s methodology. By only using the top 1% of hockey sticks, M&M effectively limited their hockey sticks to ones in a positive orientation. Stokes did not do this on the basis that step was not explicitly written into the code (even though it is inherent to the process the code used). As that post shows, the visual impact Stokes highlighted almost completely disappears when one flips hockey sticks to all share the same orientation (as they would under Mann’s methodology).
You can see for yourself what effect the decision to use a non-random sample was. It definitely has a visual impact in terms of “neatness.” It doesn’t change the point though. Whether you sue a random or non-random sample, the results will be biased toward showing a hockey stick.
Brandon, thanks for chipping in. The bi-modal orientation of random HS was clearly shown in our Figure 2, dishonestly disregarded by Stokes. In mathematical terms, PCs do not have an orientation anyway. Both orientations are eigenvectors.
Seeing Steve M’s graphic reminded me of this…
Dan –
As a postscript to Brandon’s comment (with which I concur), I’ll add a referencee to a CA article on the “hockey stick index”.
Rather than focus on the selection of the exemplary series, I would direct your friend to Figure 2 of the paper, which shows that the PC1 “hockey stick index” is distributed in an entirely different fashion when processed with the MBH method vs. the conventional method. This figure is based on the entire set of 10,000 random series.
I’d forgotten about the t-statistic post. It was a good way of translating our original findings into very conventional statistics.
Mann’s book came out a long time after the original exchanges on the topic. You ask:
The issue didn’t come up in any of the original exchanges and thus was not covered in the voluminous early discussions. I’ve never tried to respond to Mann’s book. It contains so much garbage and misinformation that it is impossible and uninteresting for me to respond to every spitball with my age and energy.
The point is not relevant to any of the main conclusions of the article, summarized in the abstract as follows:
The figure summarizing our simulations showing the weird bias in Mann’s algorithm was our Figure 2 shown below, with caption clearly stating that it was taken from 10000 simulations. When Mann’s claim that our figures were based on “100 simulations” is assessed against this figure, it is flatly untrue.
In response to our 2003 article, Mann et al said that the HS was the “dominant” pattern of variance, but, without using the defective Mann principal components technique, it wasn’t, as we showed in our Figure 3. Again, this figure has nothing to do with a supposed selection of 100 simulations.
We showed that Mann’s PC1 was nothing more than bristlecone pine chronologies, the HS shape of which was specifically said by the original authors to NOT be a temperature proxy. As we reported soon afterwards, Mann had done a sensitivity study which showed that he did not get a HS shape without the stripbark bristlecones, but failed to disclose that in MBH98. The MBH98 hockeystick depended on the bristlecones – data that the originating specialists said was not a temperature proxy and the NAS panel said should be “avoided” in reconstructions – recommendations that have been snubbed by specialists. The results in the table showing this do not depend on “100 simulations”.
MBH98 had claimed to consider statistical significance using both RE and r^2 tests and in their Figure 3, showed both RE and r^2 results for the AD1820 step. Mann’s Supplementary Information failed to disclose that very bad verification r2 results were obtained in early periods. We showed the miserable verification r2 statistic (0.02) for the AD1400 step – rather contradicting Mann’s grandiose claims of “99% statistical significance”. These results do not depend on “100 simulations”.
Mann had claimed “99% significance” for his results. In the computer code accompanying the article (a level of documentation then unprecedented in the field), I had extracted and plotted up top percentile HSI simulations for comparison to Mann’s “99% significant” HS, but did not use this inventory for Figure 2 or statistical comparisons as clearly shown in the computer scripts archived with the article. I used one of these examples in Figure 1, but could just as easily have chosen any other simulation with no impact on the effect of the figure. Efforts by Mann and his acolytes to contest the data mining property of his PC method ought to have abandoned when the 2006 NRC Committee reproduced the effect under very simple conditions. It’s ludicrous that Mann and his acolytes continue to deny the error to this day.
The statistical findings of our article were based on the full population of 10,000 simulations; claims to the contrary are untrue.
A technical point: under Unix, “ctime” is not actually the file creation time; instead it’s the inode change time. It’s useful for things like incremental backups, where you might have a file with an old mtime (modification time) but a new ctime, which might be a file that has recently been copied onto the system with a command that preserved the modification time, but which is still new to this system so deserves to be added to the incremental backup. The user can set mtime to anything, but cannot mess with ctime.
Windows, I believe, actually does have a “file creation time” which is literally that.
It’s those sorts of differences that I’d originally figured you were relying on in differentiating between Unix and Windows copying; I am disappointed to find that instead it’s details of the modification dates, which don’t seem like they could be at all reliable as indications of what sort of system they were done on.
Steve: Nobody has tried to analyse cf7z metadata. To some extent, I’m pointing out what I’ve noticed and if someone else with more knowledge of technical details can shed light, so much the better.
I wasn’t trying to draw conclusions about the type of system being used. I think that you may have been wrongfooted by terms that I adopted from Forensicator: “Unix” and “Windows” copy – to distinguish copying which respectively resulted in a modification time set to the copying time versus copying which left the modification time unchanged.
I focused on documents for which 7z directory and pdf document modification dates were the same, but modification times were different – not to shed insight on types of system, but because the pattern seemed very odd to me and arguably an indication of some sort of “eavesdropping” and exfiltration. The pattern is entirely different than the ngpvan pattern analysed by Forensicator and worth understanding.
If you are unsatisfied by efforts to explain, I’m sorry, but it would be more helpful to either offer a better explanation.
In Unix, “cp” sets a new modification date, but “cp -a” (a for “archive”) preserves the old ones. Unix “tar” preserves modification dates by default, as does rsync. I get that you’re just borrowing “Forensicator”‘s terminology, and using it with hesitation, as in “Unix-style” or “Windows-style” rather than simply “Unix” or “Windows”; I’m just suggesting that this is one piece of terminology which is best not borrowed.
I don’t have a better explanation for the situation in general here; I’m just making a narrow technical point. (I don’t particularly care who the hacker was; even if it was Russia, it’s not like the DNC’s security was so good that only a nation-state could penetrate it — far from it.)
Steve: thanks for this clarification. Do you have suggestion for terminology?
One of the reasons why the DNC and FBI had to treat the matter with kid gloves in July 2016 was because they had just laundered the charges against Hillary, including turning a blind eye to the destruction of server logs under orders by Cheryl Mills, thereby preventing any investigation of hacking of the Clinton server – which would have been just as damaging to her if found.
It amazes me that US police should undertake an armed pre-dawn raid on Paul Manafort, while giving Cheryl Mills immunity to grant access to documents that the FBI could have obtained a warrant for.
They would have had to obtain a subpoena, and for that they needed a grand jury, which would mean they had to admit that Hillary was under criminal investigation.
I haven’t been here in awhile, but I can see CA continues to be awesome! Thanks.
The guy I am discussing all this with, Sofla, has been an ardent supporter of the AGW theory, yet he has never heard of CA. One of the problems he has is that he believes people like the Hockey Team are all above board and are doing things by the book…peer review is the gold standard and mere blog posts are not up to those standards, blah blah. However, since being introduced to CA he does seem willing to dig in and find the real facts. The only way for us to do that is to prove or disprove specific statements in the Wiki article he posted as evidence. We have been trying to agree on the issue of covariance vs correlation matrices as related to a supposed “exaggeration” of the hockey stick shape in MM05. While he ponders a response, I moved ahead to what he considers a devastating (lol) comment from Mann — the one discussed here.
So, I’m trying to keep things as specific as possible as he doesn’t believe anything anybody says without nailing down the evidence. In this case, Mann’s comment is true in one sense but it doesn’t mean what Mann is trying to make it seem.
I am going to invite Sofla to continue his education at CA and see what comes of it. I’m hoping he will engage here and learn from the horses’ mouth rather than through my filter.
the issue of covariance and correlation matrices impacts whether bristlecones are in the PC4 or PC2 in the NOAMER network with bristlecones. If bristlecones are excluded, the issue doesn’t arise because none of the remaining proxies give rise to a HS. Our E&E article has much more detail than the GRL article.
The ability of Mann’s algorithm to make HS out of red noise attracted a lot of interest because it was an unexpected result and had some academic interest. Academics tended to be uninterested in mundane issues like strip bark bristlecones, though the data issues were always central to my own perspective.
Steve says :”Academics tended to be uninterested in mundane issues like strip bark bristlecones..”
=== ===
Let’s talk about scientists, rather than academics. Concerning the Mannian Hockey stick, the strip bark bristlecone data would have been cause for any scientist to dismiss Mann’s study as of no value. The issue is not so much mundane as determinative, especially taken in conjunction with Mann’s weighting of the bc data and his reliance on one cedar in the Gaspe, this conclusion readily obtained without any reference to proper statistics.
One must keep in mind the general level of scientific quality found in the works of the paleoclimate reconstructionists, also keeping in mind that there are good scientists and poor scientists and this difference is mostly a reflection of individual judgement. I have heard it stated, by more than one scientist of established preeminence in his field, that the most important personal quality of a scientist is…not intelligence, but personal integrity.
The quote about not seeing a problem when your job depends on it seems very applicable to the treemometer crowd.
They embarked on a line of research entirely dependent on one of the most ridiculous assumptions I’ve come across: that biology and environment are “stationary” over hundreds of years. That temperature changes have no effect on any other factors which might alter tree growth patterns. This assumption is even challenged by the overarching paradigm they work under: climate change.
Dan, this devastating comment from Mann is something he got from someone else, either Nick Stokes or Deep Climate, and he is repeating it even though he knows it is irrelevant because it sounds so convincing. To clarify, the statement is true but irrelevant, because the conclusions reached are not based on a random sample of the top 100, but the entire set of simulated data. Only the picture was taken from the top 100 for visual effect. Another counter was to take these hockey sticks produced by random data and not flip them so it is harder to notice the effect, even though Mann’s algorithm flips everything to a positive orientation.
If you are looking to convince someone, perhaps looking at Mann 08 with upside down data would be more effective. Mann then denied he used anything upside down, and almost every defender has followed suit. It is pretty easy to look at the Matlab code and see that Mann’s defense is wrong. It used to be even easier when Kaufmann had an Excel spreadsheet for his Arctic warming paper with the upside-down data that could be compared to the original, but he issued a correction.
Skeptical Science has not posted a rebuttal, probably because Robert Way told them Mann is wrong on their internal forum which was hacked, and indeed said so about all of the hockey stick criticisms.
One more thing. I often see mention of Mann’s flawed statistical technique, affectionately termed the Mannomatic. I know he centered the data on approximately the 20th century data only, but is there a rundown of exactly what else he did that was not kosher? How important was the improper centering compared to the other problems? (Note, I have only basic college level stats education, so I’m straining to keep up with a lot of this, interesting as it is).
I realize his methods had not been released for a long time. Was his complete code ever released?
there are many different problems in the field. Hard to summarize. Only place where defects are described is at Climate Audit, but it’s hard to wade through everything there.
MBH98-99 ultimately stands or falls on whether stripbark bristlecone chronologies are, magically, uniquely accurate proxies for NH temperature or whether there HS shape is due to something local (as we argued.) Mann tried to make the MBH98 debate about the “right” number of principal components to retain in an analysis – thereby making the debate sound mathematical and out of reach of most readers. (Using non-Mannian principal components, the distinctive HS-shape of the bristlecones was demoted to a lower order principal component.) But that was disinformation fog. If bristlecones are invalid proxies, his principal component pettifogging was moot.
The NRC 2006 panel said that stripbark chronologies should be “avoided” in temperature reconstructions. That ought to have ended efforts to salvage MBH98 and further use of stripbark bristlecone chronologies. But the stubborn climate academics resisted. Mann et al 2008, while purporting to adhere to NRC recommendations, used stripbark bristlecone chronologies anyway. And their use by other academics increased (not decreased) in apparent solidarity with MAnn’s use of defective data. Mann et al 2008 was relied on in the most recent IPCC report (AR5) with the odd result that Mann’s stripbark bristlecones were additionally used to reconstruct Southern Hemisphere temperatures. The entire discipline is beyond stupid.
Mann purported to show that he could “get” a HS without bristlecones in Mann et al 2008, but this reconstruction relied on contaminated sediments from Finland (Tiljander et al) – another Mannian horror story. Gavin Schmidt and others obtusely defended Mann on this.
The code issue is complicated. Code for Mann’s PC calculations was on an FTP site which Mann made public following publication of our 2003 paper (falsely claiming at the time that it had always been public.) Examination of this fortran code enabled me to identify the error in Mann’s principal components calculations. MAnn later deleted this information, which is only available because I saved it. Following widely publicized refusal to show other parts of his code (even on front page of WSJ), Mann grudgingly produced some of his code when asked by the House Energy and Commerce Committee (over cacaphonous screeching by academic community.) His production was incomplete e.g. it didn’t show his algorithm for retention of principal components – a battleground issue. 12 years later, Mann has still not produced it. In 1998, Mann failed to report adverse verification r2 statistics (which he calculated at the time and knew to be adverse). To this day, he has refused to report these results. Wahl and Ammann confirmed the observation of McIntyre and McKitrick 2005 that the reconstruction failed this relevant test (though they claimed that this didn’t matter.)
Earlier this year, I made an amicus brief in the litigation between Mann and Steyn which might interest you as well (short because of word limits, but probably no harm in being short).
Click to access 20170126%20McIntyre%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
Steve,
The brief was concise, clear and very well done. Has the court ruled on the re-hearing issue yet? These are usually longshots, but a concise guide to the problems with Mann’s work is very useful.
JD
There is also a CO2 effect that was adjusted for. The meaning of this adjustment as done by Mann was CO2 in 1900 caused changes to trees in the past.
Steyn is my second favorite Canadian. :o) I’m glad to see he has you as a resource.
Last question. One of my favorite posts (other than Tiljander) was the Starbuck’s hypothesis and the Almagre expedition. Did anybody ever find the exact location of the Gaspe tree(s)? Did anybody go out there for a resample?
Thanks so much for all the replies!
I think that I geolocated the Gaspe trees (generally) in a photo in a hiker’s blog. I might have tagged it with “gaspe”.
Among other things, I marvel at both Steyn’s encyclopaedic knowledge of popular music that he writes about so stylishly and his verbal dexterity – nice to see him as a regular guest on Tucker Carlson and elsewhere.
@Brandon, Harold and Steve:
I think I understand a little better. Please review my summary and let me know where if I’m going wrong somewhere:
MM05 performed 10,000 simulations (can someone remind me what the simulated data was?) using both the Mannomatic and “conventional” methods. The HSI (later recognized, essentially, as a t-statistic) was created as a way to see what each method did to the data. While the conventional method showed a normal distribution of HSI, the Mannomatic proved to generate either upward or downward hockey sticks from simulated data, as shown in the two HSI peaks in Figure 2.
Brandon is saying that MM chose the best examples of hockey stick-ness to illustrate in their paper, but the fact is that nearly ALL (97%) of the Mannomatic simulations generated a hockey stick to one degree or another. Choosing the best examples for illustration has nothing to do with 1% or 100 out of 10,000.
I am unclear about how the simulation works. I know that if we remove the hockey stick shaped data sets from Mann’s actual data set, then the Mannomatic cannot generate hockey stick PC’s. How, then, does it do so in the simulations? I know I’m missing something important about how the simulations work.
Thanks.
if pseudoproxy network is red noise, the pseudoproxies have autocorrelation i.e. pseudo-trends here and there. The Mannomatic will heavily weight all series with greater 20th century trends and assign positive or negative signs so that they match. The method will extract whatever blade it can in the 20th century. In earlier centuries, the autocorrelation wears off and everything cancels out. It’s a nonsensical method and should have been disavowed by climate scientists years ago.
People with some math skill who are not climate scientists readily understand the defect, but climate scientists purport not to understand.
Yes. Brandon understood exactly how the example was chosen. In retrospect, I’d have chosen the example differently as examples from lower percentiles showed the effect just fine – as one can see with the sharpness of the bimodal distribution edges. Nick Stokes and his ilk have zero interest in understanding the phenomenon.
I don’t think Stokes is that stupid. He does understand. His performances are for the benefit of those who don’t. When “the cause” is not on the line, he can be quite erudite. When it is, he will be as dumb as a doorknob if that’s what it takes not to award the “opposition” any points.
Yes, exactly. “dumb as a doorknob if that’s what it takes not to award the “opposition” any points” accurately describes his many comments at Climate Audit. I’ve used the term “intentionally obtuse” to describe the performance of intelligent climate academics purporting not to understand critiques that everyone else understands. Words apply to Gavin Schmidt’s defence of Mann’s upside down mud.
Dan, you might want to check out Jeff Id at The Air Vent from Sept 2008 on. The link to Hockey Stick posts is grossly incomplete, so you have to go thru the archives in order. There is one particular chart I am looking for that summarizes the problem with Mann’s algorithm pretty well. I get the impression you would not be overwhelmed by the details in Jeff’s posts, but I am looking for a much simpler one.
Fantastic.
At the risk of overstaying my welcome in this thread, and notwithstanding the other logical arguments against MBH98 already posted above by Steve, I have to throw out one last objection in Wiki, as related to red noise:
Red noise for surrogate datasets should have the characteristics of natural variation, but the statistical method used by McIntyre and McKitrick produced “persistent red noise” based on 20th century warming trends which showed inflated long-term swings, and overstated the tendency of the MBH98 method to produce hockey stick shapes. Their use of this persistent red noise invalidated their claim that “the MBH98 15th century reconstruction lacks statistical significance”, and there was also a data handling error in the MM05 method. Studies using appropriate red noise found that MBH98 passed the threshold for statistical skill, but the MM05 reconstructions failed verification tests.
So it seems they understand your Figure 2 but claim it isn’t valid because you had persistent red noise instead of “natural variation” red noise. I guess the wrong kind of red noise. Is that even a thing? I’d hate to think our understanding of temperatures over the last millenia hinges on what kind of red noise is used for testing methods.
Dan, there’s an interesting aspect to that argument given the red noise used by Michael Mann and others which Steve can probably fill you in on. It is deal with math and hypocrisy of Mann and his defenders. For a simpler response, I’d suggest considering what that argument says. Effectively, it says, “Yes the MBH methodology for generating principal components is biased, but McIntyre and McKitrick exaggerated how severe that bias is.” I don’t think anyone should find that comforting.
As for the statement:
This is completely misleading. M&M05 did not offer an alternative reconstruction. They asked what happens if you don’t use certain problematic proxies. To get an answer, they performed a sensitivity test in which they reran the calculations without those problematic proxies. They did not say the results of sensitivity tests were “right” and should be used as reconstructions. They said, “If you remove these two problematic proxies, this is what happens.”
Saying the result you get without those two problematic proxies fails to pass verification tests (not that MBH’s tests had any real value) does nothing to rebut what McIntyre and McKitrick said. In fact, it supports their point. Without those two problematic proxies, the shape of the curve is vastly different and the results fail to pass verification tests. In other words, this argument further confirms the reliance of MBH on bristlecone proxies and the Gaspe series (which was included both on its own and in the NOAMER network with the bristlecone proxies).
Arguing about what type of red noise is most appropriate does nothing to challenge that Mann’s implementation of PCA was wrong and biased in a way that mined for hockey sticks. Even if it did, that issue does nothing to change the fact MBH’s hockey stick shape was entirely dependent upon two proxies, both of which were known to have serious problems – including the person who collected one saying it wasn’t a temperature proxy at all.
+1
Thanks Brandon and Steve. I understand exactly what you are saying and it makes sense. Two follow up questions to help those determined only to debate the specific statements made in Wikipedia, and not understand the larger picture (yet):
1) There is one thing nagging at me, and maybe the answer is over my head. They say that MM got incorrect results during their simulation because they used “persistent” instead of “natural variation” red noise. I understand about red noise being autocorrelated because it is simulating tree ring data. Is there a real difference between the two, or is making a distinction just a dodge? This seems similar to Hughes’ claim that a correlation and not covariance matrix should have been used. (Steve’s rebuttal shows that even Hughes’ references claiming superiority of the correlation matrix actually seem to argue for the covariance matrix).
2)So when Steve showed a “before and after” of the MBH hockey stick with and without bristlecones, this analysis was done recreating Mann’s own methods? In other words, Steve had figured out enough of the Mannomatic to use it himself? (I understand Mann did the same thing as shown in the Censored directory).
This post says:
As there is no reason why PDF timestamps should be treated differently than those of any other file. I tried replicating the result but couldn’t. I took screengrabs of the timestamped shown within the Properties tab with two different time zones. You can see them here. I got the same result for the time shown within the directory listing as well.
Anyone who is seeing PDF timestamps treated differently than those of other files is experiencing some sort of bug. I’d suggest finding a different version of your software.
Brandon, what you’ve shown is not inconsistent with what I reported. You’ve not replicated my recipe – which wasn’t as clear as it might have been. You’ve shown what I called the “directory” modification times in two different timezones, presumably Central and Eastern. Now extract the documents in each different time zone and open up. See if you get the same relative local time despite changing time zones.
Are you talking about the internal metadata contained within the files? You hadn’t mentioned extracting files prior to that part of the post, and, 7z doesn’t touch internal metadata so it has no effect on this. If we’re talking about internal metadata, the surmise you describe here is wrong:
That is not how internal timestamps for these file types are stored. They don’t use seconds elapsed since an epoch like system timestamps do. They set fixed times, sometimes with information about timezones, sometimes not. As an example, here is the modified timestamp for the PDF file I used in my example above:
D:20150529164653-04’00’
The D specifies the type of variable. The colon indicates the start of the variable. 2015 is the year. 05 is the month. 29 is the day of month. 16 is the hour of day. 46 is the minutes. 53 is the seconds. The – indicates what follows is subtracted from UTC. 04 indicates the offset from UTC (specified as negative by the previous symbol). ’00’ indicates the number of minutes offset from UTC (some zones use offsets smaller than an hour).
This is the full extent of information which can be contained in a PDF modified timestamp. Almost all of it is optional. The only value which must be set (and can obviously be set incorrectly) is the year. Everything else is optional. If some of that information is missing, that can cause issues. If the timezone information was absent, there would be no way to know what timezone was correct and thus the program might assume the timezone of the system it is on. If the timezone was specified, as in this PDF file, the program would know what timezone to use and thus might disregard the system’s time zone.
.docx files use a similar format for their modified metadata. I don’t happen to have a tool installed to extract it at the moment though. If you extracted it, I suspect what you’d find is the .docx files in this archive don’t have timezone information set. That would be the reason for the discrepancy you see. It has nothing to do with 7z. It would happen with any sort of copying.
Brandon, thanks for the details. I haven’t claimed to knowledge of how the dates and times are exchanged, but I saw what I saw and collated it carefully. I’ll post up some screenshots to make sure that I’ve explained it correctly.
Whatever the reason, the ~10 minute offsets in modification times remain puzzling.
The pertinent point is if you want to examine metadata, it is best to look at the raw metadata. Relying on other programs/systems to interpret the raw data for you leads to apparently discrepancies. Once you’ve examined the raw metadata to understand what it says, then you can look for a way to work with it which doesn’t introduce discrepancies. Or alternatively, you can make adjustments to fix any discrepancies that get introduced.
Anyway, I commented on that discrepancy because it seemed the easiest to examine/resolve. For differences of a small amount of time, the first thing to rule out is some disagreement between the software creating the files and the system in terms of when timestamps get set. That can happen, but I’d say it is safe to rule that out given the number and different types of files involved.
That makes the most likely explanation the files were copied shortly after being created. That could be because of a legitimate automated program, such as backup software. It could be because of malware that copied files after they were saved. It could also be that people copied/e-mailed or otherwise transferred the files shortly after they were saved.
I haven’t collated the internal metadata so I can’t say which is most likely, but my default assumption would be the last of those options, possibly with the files being transferred from workstations to a shared server. That could explain why the time differences are inconsistent – the amount of time people take to transfer files is inconsistent. The reason I’d favor that interpretation is automated programs tend to have regular patterns in their timestamps. I didn’t see any obvious patterns in the system timestamps. If one could find such patterns, I would then favor the possibility of these results being caused by backup software/malware.
Steve, have you searched the doc for document management policy metadata or shared document server properties? I honestly know little on this but see this mentioned by Microsoft. here and I see a list of metadata toolshere.
Is there a safe download link to cf.7z?
>> .docx files use a similar format for their modified metadata. I don’t happen to have a tool installed to extract it at the moment though. If you extracted it, I suspect what you’d find is the .docx files in this archive don’t have timezone information set.
Create a new file using MS Word and type something, then save it.
Then use 7zip (or similar) to unpack this document, which is a zipped archive containing a few directories with a set of files.
Go to the directory ‘docProps’, and open the file core.xml in a textfile editor.
The times for this document are in two tags dcterms:created and dcterms:modified.
These give the creation and modification times in ISO format, using UTC timezone (‘Z’).
Example:
2017-10-06T15:30:00Z2017-10-06T15:30:00Z
So it will always save documents using UTC, so no specific timezone. That is usually the best option. The program simply determines the difference between the timezone of your computer and UTC, and then stores documents using UTC. When showing the information it will always convert back from UTC to whatever timezone your computer is currently set to.
The example did not come out right. Here is the properly ‘escaped’ version that I hope displays as intended.
<dcterms:created xsi:type="dcterms:W3CDTF">2017-10-06T15:30:00Z</dcterms:created><dcterms:modified xsi:type="dcterms:W3CDTF">2017-10-06T15:30:00Z</dcterms:modified>
wikileaks veracity:
Please correct me if I’m wrong – I believe that to date, wikileaks statements (such as the non-Russian attribution) have been proven to be false. There may be content provided by others that contains errors, untruths and/or damn lies, of course. Any takers?
MrMethane, you will see no takers, imo, because Wikileaks has not been shown wrong. It is the most credible source that we have regarding the origin of its archives of DNC/Podesta emails. In this affair of public hysteria, whipped up and maintained by various media organs and other interested parties, credibility is the most important means that we have of evaluation.
I meant NO wikileaks statements….. sorry…
In a perfect world we would like to have our government to be the most credible source of information to its citizens, checked by an unbiased and independent media. That is the ideal, a dream we aspire to. The reality is the US government’s credibility has only been good when comparison to non-free countries. Especially, regarding domestic politics it’s never been high. There are numerous breaches of trust before and after Watergate by both major political parties. Trump was elected mainly as a house cleaner and swamp drainer. The electorate finally decided an outsider, even a crude and bombastic one, has more wholesome than anyone in the establishment. (But I digress).
The point is that the DNC establishment start with low credibility and falls from there when under the direction of DWS or Clinton. There is absolutely no reason that either should be believed on the matter of the DNC hack/leak. Both have demonstrated willingness to change their stories to suit the current most favorable narrative. Clinton’s personal email server story changed practically with every telling. More recently DWS first claimed the Awan laptop with her user name was hers and demanded the Capitol Police return it. After Awan was arrested she claimed she had no connection to the laptop but that its contents are protected from disclosure under House rules. She personally hired the lawyer who works for the House of Representative to oversee their rules to block the police from accessing the laptop. The Daily Caller reports:
This looks like to me Awan was trying to escape the country clean and making it impossible for him to be bumped off. Because that would lead to a murder investigation that would lead to forensic analysis of the laptop. The laptop was discovered by security personnel in a phone closet in the Rayburn legislative office building, not a building he or DWS had any office or business in. Why? The potential murder investigation would be run by the Capitol Police, not be confused with the heavily Democrat influenced DC Metro Police that allegedly shut down the Seth Rich investigation.
Apparently some don’t think that Assange, with a lifetime of U.S. jail time hanging over his head, would lie in an attempt to persuade U.S. intelligence and law enforcement authorities that his operation is not a tool of Russian state actors. Personally, I don’t feel any obligation to believe anything that Assange says that cannot be independently verified.
Even if he has no evidence, and no one was willing to accept the offer, merely making the offer serves to exonerate Trump by simply having the offer repeated in the media. The discussion is whether to give him a pardon in exchange for evidence it’s not the Russians, not whether his claims are true.
You are berry smart, mike. I didn’t know the discussion was limited to whatever you said. How long have you been in charge of defining the limits of public discussions? Did you start by doing really well at limiting discussions in your own house? PTA meetings? Anyway, keep up the good work. You fit right in here.
I am not attempting to limit any discussion anywhere. I think that is the effect of Assange’s offer. If people are talking about the offer, then they have essentially accepted the Trump innocence. It is called ‘thinking past the sale’. Some examples are you go to a car dealer and he asks what color you like. The discussion is no longer whether you are buying the car. Perhaps you wish to blame me for this as well? Another one is every time a candidate says ‘My first day in off ice I will …’ They have been trained to do this by their consultants. Thinking past the sale is one of many weapons in Trump’s arsenal that he has honed over decades, and makes me wonder if the whole deal offer somehow started with him. He pretends not to have heard about the deal when asked, increasing the benefit to him of having people talk about it.
Nobody is talking about the offer except that clown Rorhbacher, some of the dumber right wing blogs and silly online publications like the gateway pundit. Even Assange has put the squash on the story. Where is there any exoneration of Trump? Maybe it could be construed as that among some who have already exonerated him? It’s a non-story. Period.
Don M, nobody says that you have to believe Assange, but your claims about him being motivated to dodge U.S. law does not wash. And like Brandon, you ignore Craig Murray who says the same.
Do you know where Assange has been for the last several years? I will help you. Hiding in a room in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London. Why do you think he is holed up there? He likes the food. Do you think admitting to getting the goods from Russian intelligence would help his case? Use your head.
I have read the Wikipedia entry on Julian Assange and Wikileaks both. Now, what about Craig Murray.
What about Assange’s associate Craig Murray? I don’t know that clown. I don’t have to believe that he allegedly met somebody in some trees and got the maguffin. Sounds like BS to me. This is simple. You choose to believe who and what you want to believe. It’s a free country.
Until there is some definitive evidence on who gave wiki the goods, I am not going to worry my handsome little head about it. The important part of the story is that no evidence has been discovered that links Trump or his campaign to the alleged Russian interference in our sacred election.
there’s an important difference between verifying evidence that supposedly yields “high confidence” in Russian interference and developing an alternative theory – just as in climate reconstructions. If the evidence is inconclusive, that refutes “high confidence” without necessarily solving the case. In discussing climate issues, I always found discussions more productive when they focused on narrow technical issues rather than jumping into theorizing about the “big picture”. I’d like to encourage that perspective on this set of puzzles as well.
for the purposes of discussion here, can we table discussion of the sanctity/non-sanctity of Assange.
Indeed, consider it tabled. In the UK, to table a subject means to introduce it for discussion. In the U.S., it means withdraw it from the agenda. These contrary meanings produced an hour of argument during WW II during a meeting of military chiefs of the respective countries. So, consider it tabled :-).
Steve: 🙂 we can get back to it later
Interesting. I read there was a similar dispute over ‘facts being fixed around the policy.’
The British chiefs moved to “table” a certain topic. The U.S. chiefs vehemently objected. They went round and round for an hour until they finally figured out the problem.
We don’t know on what evidence the “high confidence” finding was based. They are not going to tell. Without having access to NSA signal intercepts and other intel resources, alternative theories are developed absent some potentially conclusive pieces of the puzzle. I kinda know how this works from personal experience. It was very likely Russia.
I didn’t buy when it was coming from Obama’s toadies, but Trump has his people in charge of the agencies now.
No, we do not know the evidence. Nor do we know how the Trump dossier was employed, whether for intelligence evaluations or to obtain FISA warrants or for other investigative purposes. Nor do we know why Susan Rice unmasked Trump. Nor whether or not it was actually Russia that raided the DNC and Podesta. Nor the origins of the Trump dossier or who paid for it. On the strictest basis, we know nothing. We do know that metadata can be rigged or changed or otherwise misleading. In detective work, one must theorize or you have no frame of reference from which to view your quest. It’s very much like science. And, as in science, one approach may yield results while another leads to a dead end.
None of the agencies has published any details since Trump came in office. It’s only Obama era informatino.
Computer specialists at the time of the DNI report e.g. here speculated that the DNI assessment must have relied on “human intelligence” rather than technical attribution:
In my opinion, the “human intelligence” in question is nothing more than the fraudulent Steele dossier.
The whole thing looks to me like an enormous clusterf.
That isn’t true. As I discussed on a previous thread, the DHS released a follow-up to their December 29th, 2016 report on February 10th, 2017. This follow-up was termed an “enhanced analysis” and provided quite a few details. It also came out three weeks after Donald Trump took office.
Granted, that follow-up focused on Grizzly Steppe as a whole rather than just one aspect of it (the DNC breach), but the scope was the same as the initial DHS report. If people can conflate matters to paint it as being just about the DNC hack, the inverse is hardly unreasonable.
Brandon, the date of February 10 is three weeks after Trump’s inauguration. There can be no doubt that this report was produced by Obama appointees before Trump appointees gained effective control of the DHS, hence it is virtually Obama era information.
Steve: I’ll concede Brandon’s point that information came during Trump admin, but it is a trifling addition and doesn’t change the substantive point that the Intel Assessments remain based on assertion rather than evidence presented to the public
mpainter, that may be true and relevant to some discussion, but I responded to point out what Steve McIntyre said was wrong. If he wishes to correct it and say something else, then perhaps your point would matter.
That a claim he could have made may be true does not mean the claim he actually made is.
“That a claim he could have made may be true does not mean the claim he actually made is.”
Ah…oh.
But, you see, the report may reasonably be attributed to the previous administration.
In fact, the report was not unlikely entirely complete before Trump’s inauguration. Somebody probably forgot to issue it. You know these gummint types. Attribution to a successor administration is incorrect in such circumstances because of temporal considerations, i.e., the report may have been intended for earlier release. In fact, someone might have neglected to flip his calendar, and such mistakes notwithstanding, intention is the prime consideration in deciding attribution. Don’t you agree?
Steve McIntyre:
Given you have, as far as I’ve been able to tell, not once referred to that February 10th “enhanced analysis,” I am curious why you call it a “trifling addition.” Actually, you criticized the DHS for failing to connect a code exemplar to specific malware, making a point of how WordFence was able to do so, seemingly disregarding the fact the DHS made the same connection in their “enhanced analysis” (and provided more detail). Given that and your clearly false claim above, I have to ask, were you even aware of that follow-up?
If you were aware of the document and had read it, I struggle to make sense of things you’ve been saying. For instance, “trifling addition”? The document contains a significant amount of detailed information, information you have never even alluded to. I can’t begin to imagine how one would dismiss it as a “trifling addition.”
I would say things like examinations of ~20 different malware files, including information which uniquely identifies them, qualifies as more than a “trifling addition.” Certainly, passwords used to decrypt malware programs is information beyond what was readily available prior to the DHS publishing this document. I know I got quite a bit of information out of the report when it was first released – information nobody I’ve seen has been discussing. I struggle to see how anyone would read it and think it was an unimportant update.
As an aside, the document in question also people of the risk of false positives, saying:
Which if you had seen would make your remarks in the form of, “Har, har, they’re so dumb. They don’t know anyone could use those tools” seem rather disingenuous. If you had read this report, it would mean you knew the DHS considered the risk of false positives, warned people of them, said the malware used in an attack cannot be used on its own to identify culprits… and just decided to ignore all that.
Personally, I think it’s more likely you had never heard of this follow-up to the report you criticized until I brought it up and for some reason chose not to look at it even after I referenced it to you numerous times.
Brandon, I don’t know why you say such things. I had taken an interest in the Wordfence article long ago and was aware of the follow up some time ago. I don’t recall whether this was tweaked by some earlier comment of yours, but I’ve known about this supplement for some time now. In my opinion (which I stand by), the DHS supplement did not contain any new information or evidence that supported or established the attribution of the DNC hack. Nor were Jeffrey Carr or other critics of the poor evidence presentation by DHS impacted by the supplement.
Brandon is trying very hard not to be testy and insulting. But he can’t help getting angry and making a spectacle of himself when someone disagrees with his brilliant pronouncements.
The publicly presented evidence for Russian hacking of the DNC is not conclusive and is viewed as unsubstantial by a lot of people, who are more mature and just as clever as fitful Brandon.
On the other hand, it would be foolish to assume that the publicly revealed evidence is all there is. FBI, CIA, NSA, CYBERCOM, DHS etc. etc. are not going to reveal all that they have. Admiral Mike Rogers, head of NSA and CYBERCOM, is trusted by President Trump and he has persuaded POTUS that it was probably the Russians.
Steve McIntyre:
I believe I made it clear why I say such things. If you were aware of that follow-up, then you’ve made a number of remarks which you should have known were, at best, misleading. Some you should have know to be completely false. For instance, you stated the DHS was not able to make the same connection WordFence made even though it did exactly that in the document in question. You even said the DHS’s inability to make that connection “speaks to their limitations.”
If you’d like, I can a make a list other things you’ve said which the supplement shows to be misleading/false.
That document did not provide direct evidence of anything as that was not the purpose, and most evidence of crimes like these doesn’t get publicly released. If you claim the document was a “trifling addition” because it didn’t provide direct evidence when that was never the purpose of the document, that’s changing the subject. This fork started because you said:
I pointed out this claim was untrue because the DHS had published a document containing substantive information about the nature of the attacks in question on February 10th. You played this point down by claiming the document was a “trifling addition,” but the amount of information in it is not trifling at all. Your claim it is was grossly untrue.
Brandon is grossly petulant and wants to criminalize a difference of opinion. Steve is substantially correct. The information published on Feb 10, was Obama era information. Obama’s stooges were still running the agencies, except for Admiral Rogers, who was not an Obama stooge.
Brandon won’t reply to my comments. He has been pretending to ignore me, since I slapped him around years ago.
Yes, some details came out in a report after Trump was inaugurated. But to claim Steve is wrong or misleading, they have to be details that are the same details Steve was talking about.
Steve:
>> None of the agencies has published any details since Trump came in >>office. It’s only Obama era informatino.
>>
Brandon:
>I pointed out this claim was untrue because the DHS had published a document >containing substantive information about the nature of the attacks in >question on February 10th.
I go back to see what Steve was replying to:
>We don’t know on what evidence the “high confidence” finding was based.
This is the item for which no ‘details’ have been published, now corrected to ‘trifling addition’
So what is this ‘high confidence’ finding? Previous comment was replying to
Steve:
>there’s an important difference between verifying evidence that supposedly yields “high confidence” in Russian interference and developing an alternative theory – just as in climate reconstructions.
The agencies are not going to publish the details. That’s how they are supposed to operate. Computer specialists are free to speculate all they want. Since Trump came to office he has stated that he believes that it was probably Russia. POTUS has access to all the evidence and the deliberations. His people are in charge of the agencies.
So what does Zdziarski really know? Again, the agencies are not going to report to the world the means and the methods they used to come to their determination. If anything, they will misdirect. They are spooks. Let the Russians run around looking for double agents.
Let’s look at the completion of the Zdziarski quote:
“The DNI report subtly implied that more weight was put on our intelligence coming from espionage operations than on cyber warfare,” Zdziarski wrote. “As someone who’s publicly called out the FBI over misleading the public and the court system, I believe the DNI report to be reliable. I also believe @CrowdStrike’s findings to be reliable based on the people there and their experience with threat intelligence.”
The Steele dossier is obviously a fraud. I don’t think that’s the evidence presented to Trump that has convinced him to reluctantly admit it was “probably” Russia.
This Russia BS will grind along but in time the Dims will eat it.
you say ” I don’t think that’s the evidence presented to Trump that has convinced him to reluctantly admit it was “probably” Russia.”
My impression is that the Intel Community kept repeating their conclusions louder and louder without providing any evidence materially different from the limited evidence presented in public and that Trump figured that it was easier to stop arguing about it but remains unconvinced.
Indications are that Trump is sitting on a pile of information that will explode this whole dossier-election interference-DNC “hacking” in the face of the Democrats and he will choose the moment to do so, in the meanwhile holding his cards close to his chest.
For example, congressman Dana Rohrabacher, R-Ca, visited with Assange in London, back in August. See article at The Hill. Rohrabacher claims that Americans “will be outraged” when the truth comes out. Trump will have the complete details on the Wikileaks/DNC affair with documents, I have no doubt.
Also, it’s just been reported that one of Mueller’s goons has interviewed Christopher Steele in England. I regard Steele as a hostage, with his cooperation in this matter secured by the UK government.
So, we shall eventually have the truth, or something close to that.
“So, we shall eventually have the truth, or something close to that.”
If so, it will not likely come from an official source. One of the main objectives of a active operation is by enticing or forcing the authorities and media to stake a position. Once this is done they are investors in that position and in the face of future contrary evidence will become conspirators after the fact to suppress it. Look at the amount of energy in this blog just today in maintaining and bolstering set positions made from past comments. But when it comes to an authority they have the added rationale they are not preserving their personal credentials but those of the institution, thus to admit error it is reasoned would be harmful to the common good.
For any authority to expose the DNC as being behind G2 would be explosively discrediting to all US institutions, as Watergate was. Don’t look for it to happen.
Rohrabacher is a clown. Assange is trying to use him to obtain a get out of jail free card. Assange says that wiki does not discuss sources, but he has claimed Russia is not the source and now he is dangling alleged proof. How is he going to prove it wasn’t Russia without divulging the source? Assange doesn’t need Rohrabacher or Trump, he could just reveal the information. Don’t hold your breath.
Oh, Don, I won’t hold my breath. Imagine that clown Rohrabacher believing something like Assange. And Murray. And no telling who else.
What do you suppose Assange told the clown? “Oh, Murray got that DNC stuff from some non-Russian guy in the woods and we can prove it.” I hope you are serious about not holding your breath. I worry about you.
Trump is not a passive fool, Steve. Do you really believe he would sit there letting his underlings holler at him and not demand to see the evidence? POTUS is entitled to see anything they have.
it’s hard to tell. He’s got so much to do in his job that he doesn’t really have to time to think about such details.
Steve, this Russia foolishness is very important to The Donald. He hates it. It’s a nasty dark cloud hanging over himself, his family, his associates, his administration. If there is anything he can do to make it go away, he will find the time to do it.
As the Alperovitch based cyber proof becomes more and more moot, a switch over to the Steele based (1)humint seems in the works in the Russia+Trump campaign https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/07/trump-russia-steele-dossier-moscow
LMAO. That Steele Dossier is a compound report that consists of 2 chapters/reports with general internet source background information and the rest are all based on the say-so of a ‘Trusted Compatriot’ (T) according to the original writer (W).
By the way that phrase Trusted Compatriot (доверенный соотечественник) is a typical Russian expression and indicates that W considers T a trusted compatriot (fellow countryman) ergo the original writer is ALSO a Russian (and T is a good national who can be trusted).
All actual sources are other people who mr W says that mr T told him where sources of mr T. So hearsay x times removed.
Apart from the first report none of the sources are properly indicated by codes or numbers, so no intelligence analyst can later map them. Which makes it difficult to assess which of these alleged sources are trustworthy and which are not.
Which is relevant because of the errors in the report and the clear misinformation/lies that can be proven to be lies in at least one case (Cohen); also that one must have been debunked by the US IC quite some time before Okt 1, 2016 based on entry/exit and travel of mr Cohen (who never was in the Tsjech Republic).
Another pointer that Steele probably didn’t write this, but merely acted as editor in chief. It is unlikely that he translated it, because of the many textual errors (such as Alpha Bank, that should be Alfa Bank).
And there are other pointers that the original writer is actually a Russian.
But do not take just my word about it. Below some others.
The Trump Dossier Is Fake — And Here Are The Reasons Why
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/01/13/the-trump-dossier-is-false-news-and-heres-why/#55cfa6ec6867
“…
I have studied Russia and the Soviet Union professionally since the mid-1960s.
… I have written and co-authored reports for the State Department, Congress, and the intelligence community; so I sort of know how these things work.
….
There are two possible explanations for the fly-on-the-wall claims of the Orbis report: Either its author (who is not Mr. Steele) decided to write fiction, or collected enough gossip to fill a 30-page report, or a combination of the two. The author of the Orbis report has one more advantage: He knew that what he was writing was unverifiable.
…
As someone who has worked for more than a decade with the microfilm collection of Soviet documents in the Hoover Institution Archives, I can say that the dossier itself was compiled by a Russian, whose command of English is far from perfect and who follows the KGB (now FSB) practice of writing intelligence reports, in particular the practice of capitalizing all names for easy reference.
…
I have picked out just a few excerpts from the Orbis report. It was written, in my opinion, not by an ex British intelligence officer but by a Russian trained in the KGB tradition. It is full of names, dates, meetings, quarrels, and events that are hearsay (one an overheard conversation). It is a collection of “this important person” said this to “another important person.” There is no record; no informant is identified by name or by more than a generic title. The report appears to fail the veracity test in the one instance of a purported meeting in which names, dates, and location are provided. Some of the stories are so bizarre (the Rosneft bribe) that they fail the laugh test. Yet, there appears to be a desire on the part of some media and Trump opponents on both sides of the aisle to picture the Orbis report as genuine but unverifiable.”
Thirteen Things That Don’t Add Up in the Russia-Trump Intelligence Dossier
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russia-intelligence-dossier-hacking-541626
“in particular the practice of capitalizing all names for easy reference”
Is capitalizing names in reports really unique to Russians?
But that might explain something. Flynn is called “former DIA director Michael Flynn” in the dossier. His name is not capitalized and stands out among the other names, for example in the summary his name and title are strangely in parentheses. Possibly a Ruskie wrote most but a polite English person added Flynn to the report at the request of some American friends at Fusion GPS?
A Russian writer and his trusted compatriot.
[Sounds of laughter]
So Trump’s opponents, the Democrats and his Republican adversaries plus members of the Obama administration, via their hired agents have colluded with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign.
[Sounds of mirth all around]
Rosenstein’s terms of reference to Mueller https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/17/us/politics/document-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html refer to “Russian government’s attempts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election”. While the letter included a clause “including” the investigation of “links and/or coordination” with “individuals associated”, on their face, the terms of reference require Mueller to investigate the provenance of the Steele Dossier.
From the Thirteen Things That Don’t Add Up in the Russia-Trump Intelligence Dossier:
Adding to the list of circumstantial evidence connecting the Clinton campaign to maniacal hacker, self-claimed-DNC leaker, G2 claims to be Romanian, not Russian, but unable to respond fluently to Romanian according to ThreatConnect’s of the US IC’s assessments. But also, Romanian whiskers, like the Russian ones, run down to the MO forensics.
The most twisted reasoning given by the media and Dems to give serious consideration to the Steele dossier is that since the dossier claims collusion to conduct pro-Trump cyber attacks, and this actuality is confirmed by the US IC with “high confidence,” that this proves accuracy of the dossier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier
Wikipedia:
The Steele dossier did not release anything regarding the cyber attacks until well after Crowdstrike had announced the Russians had hacked the DNC and Guccifer 2.0 claimed he was an non-Russian Romanian who did the hack and gave the stolen goods to Wikileaks. The world already knows by this time, so Steele’s “intelligence” is worthless. Yet this is used as confirmation of the legitimacy of the dossier, even by the conservative Daily Caller. Does anyone else have a problem with this reasoning?
And correcting my earlier comment stating the Romanian hackers detail connects the dossier to G2, that actually does not prove G2 script coordination since that could have been crafted by the dossier in reaction to G2’s script. But that exact timing of the two scripts still needs to be looked at more.
Absolutely. On many occasions, I’ve observed that: whatever is known to be true in the Steele Dossier was already publicly known; whatever was not publicly known and verificable is false.
Former Los Angeles Times Moscow correspondent Robert Gillette wrote in an op-ed in the Concord Monitor that the dossier has had at least one of its main factual assertions verified. On January 6, 2017, the Director of National Intelligence released a report assessing “with high confidence” that Russia’s combined cyber and propaganda operation was directed personally by Vladimir Putin, with the aim of harming Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and helping Trump.[54] Gillette wrote: “Steele’s dossier, paraphrasing multiple sources, reported precisely the same conclusion, in greater detail, six months earlier, in a memo dated June 20.
“The fact that Steele’s reports are being taken seriously after lengthy scrutiny by federal and congressional investigators has far-reaching implications.” So says the left loon Guardian.
The lengthy scrutiny has not resulted in any corroboration for the fairy tales in the Steele dossier. Of course, the Mueller investigation would interview Steele. Of course, the congressional investigators want to interview Steele. The lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the libel suits filed against Steele and his accomplices want to depose Steele. He has got some splainin to do. So far, we have seen no indication that rascal has anything to back up the ludicrous and salacious BS in his dossier.
Christopher Steele has already admitted, in a court filing, that he made no attempt to verify the information contained in his dossier, according to news reports a month or two ago.
Hence we know, by this admission, that the Mueller goons cannot extract any information from Steele other than the names of his sources. This looks very interesting. Will Steele spill the beans?
Ron, you quote:
“Former Los Angeles Times Moscow correspondent Robert Gillette wrote in an op-ed in the Concord Monitor that the dossier has had at least one of its main factual assertions verified. On January 6, 2017, the Director of National Intelligence released a report assessing “with high confidence” that Russia’s combined cyber and propaganda operation was directed personally by Vladimir Putin, with the aim of harming Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and helping Trump.”
This is satisfying lunacy. Of course the report “verified” the Steele Dossier. Because the report is based on the Steele Dossier.
+1
Follow the Money:
Could you point to the portion or portions of the report which are supposedly based on the Steele Dossier? I’ve read the report, and I even went back through it before writing this comment. I have to say, I don’t see anywhere where it cites the Steele Dossier. I don’t see anywhere where it relies on information from the Steel Dossier.
Because only a declassified version of the report is publicly available, I don’t know what ” specific intelligence and sources and methods” were used in creating it. The report makes it clear those aren’t included in it. If you have information which sheds lights on those things not included in the report, it’d be great for you to share it.
Good point, Brandon. Follow the money should tell us why he thinks the Jan 6, DNI assessment was based on the Steele dossier.
For one, the whole bit about Putin himself controlling the hacking campaign is straight out of the dossier’s plain novelistic substance.
It’s absurd. Like the GRU needs special management to do this kind of hacking? The CIA says it happens all the time.
I think this part was written by or proposed by an American or someone who knows Americans because it appeals to American self-importance–not only is this hacking attack special, rather than SOP, but it, and Hillary’s important place in history, is so gosh darn important it must be handled by the top dog himself.
the memoranda about Michael Cohen and Carter Page are obvious fabrications.
Follow the Money, I’ve read the report and “the whole bit about Putin himself controlling the hacking campaign” is not within it. That’s a figment created by various people reporting on the topic. What the DNI said was:
And a few other things along the same line. Saying Putin orders Russian resources be committed to an influence campaign is a far cry from saying Put controlled the campaign. Leaders of countries order all sorts of things be done without controlling them. You may
But it seems the true author of this claim is your imagination.
Ugh, those typos. I know they shouldn’t affect the point of my comment, but dang. I guess Vladimir Put would be a funny name, at least?
That is interesting, followthemoney. You are claiming that the assessment is straight out of the dossier. Please show us the exact wording from the Steele dossier and the corresponding wording in the assessment, so we can see how similar they are. Then explain why we should believe that the U.S. intel community could not have independently put the finger on Putin by using the vast resources at their command. Do you have any idea how many people they got and how much money they spend? I know it’s fashionable to talk about Iraq WMD and blah blah blah, but let’s not forget that we won WWII and the Cold War, along with many other successes. Do you think our intel capabilities have recently drastically deteriorated to the point we have to lift stuff out of novelistic dossiers? I have been around a while and I know they haven’t.
Putin is a KGB guy at heart. It is not out of character for him to take a hand in directing his intel goons. Why would you reject that scenario?
I will repeat this one more time. Trump trusts Adm. Mike Rogers and Rogers has convinced Trump that the NSA, CYBERCOM, CCIC, CIA, FBI DHS XYZ etc. etc. have thoughtfully and with ample evidence have made the judgement that it was Russia. The intel agencies are not going to show the evidence to the public. Get over it. Maybe it will come out in 50 years. In the meantime, everybody is free to speculate.
Don, only 3 agencies actually concur, and I suggest that the evidence and the real motivation is not in fact to “elect Trump” at all, but to sow discord amongst Americans and generate distrust of their electoral process. In that the Russians have succeeded admirably thanks to the foolishness of “useful idiots” who carry on the Russian intention for their own partisan ends.
I don’t think the Russians had to try very hard or have any real impact at all, they relied on US partisan politicians to carry it on far past the rather feeble efforts that the Russians attempted. After all, the worse they appear to have done (if they did and personally I think it unlikely) was to hack the DNC emails and Podesta’s personal gmail account using the sort of attack that I see dozens of every day. They then released them unredacted and unamended into the public domain. Almost a public service given the deceit and corruption that was exposed.
What else, spent $100K on Facebook ads (that are by no means pro-trump, supporting BLM amongst other things so it seems) and really, $100K in an election where HRC spend over $500M on advertising ? Hillary should have fired her advisors and hired the Russians if they had that much impact with that little money. That’s just an absolute joke. Anyone who takes it seriously needs their head examined to put it mildly.
To put it directly, the whole “The Russians Influenced the Election” is pure Clintonista spin, and anything that Clapper supports is so suspect and obviously a lie that it to my mind almost proves the point if he supports that narrative.
Ed Snack says “Almost a public service given the deceit and corruption that was exposed.”
====== ===== ======
Yes, except I would go further and say definitely a benefit to this country. The collateral benefits are extensive and these will continue to issue, imo.
Don M: “I will repeat this one more time. Trump trusts Adm. Mike Rogers and Rogers has convinced Trump that the NSA, CYBERCOM, CCIC, CIA, FBI DHS XYZ etc. etc. have thoughtfully and with ample evidence have made the judgement that it was Russia.”
Trump is convinced Russians actively meddled likely the same as he is convinced that Obama is a natural born citizen. The rest of us would be shocked if Russia did not meddle.
They key questions are:
1) Did Trump make a deal with Putin?
2) Did Russia’s meddling other than WL have any net positive effect for Trump?
3) Were the Russians behind WL?
4) Did WL have a significant affect to influence the outcome of the tally in MI, WI and PA?
5) Were the Russians behind Guccifer 2.0?
Answers:
1) Extremely unlikely. His interest in Russia was only to underscore Obama/Clinton failure. Trump praised Putin as a contrast to Obama’s naivete.
2) I agree with Ed Snack even though he forgot about the online blog trolls.
3) I believe Assange on this one. Though he could have been fooled, it makes little sense for the Russia to risk the blowback for such little benefit, i.e. Trump’s Russia policy could not be that significantly different from Clinton’s.
4) Not, not compared to Clinton server, immigration and bringing back manufacturing.
5) Does one hide their identity by putting on clown makeup in a parody of themselves?
I could compile a short list of things that Clapper told the truth about, but let’s just stipulate that he was an enthusiastic accomplice in Obama’s efforts to subvert and politicize our military and intelligence institutions. Clapper is not in charge of anything any more. Trump is in charge now and he has stated that he believes that it was probably Russia that hacked the DNC and that clown Podesta. His people are in charge of the agencies and have had time to review the evidence.
Whether the Russians had any significant effect on the outcome of the election is just a matter of speculation, rumination and opinion. I believe that the release of the DNC and Podesta emails were helpful for Trump and I am very happy about it. I think I will buy a bottle of Russian vodka to celebrate, again.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/09/nsa-director-rogers-says-no-reduction-in-russian-attempts-to-interfere-in-elections.html
The three agencies included in the DNI summary report are the ones with the most responsibility on the subject matter. They would have had input from the other intel agencies, particularly DHS and CCIC, and there is no reason to believe that any agency disagreed with the conclusions. My educated guess is that most of the more compelling evidence came from NSA and CYBERCOM signals intelligence. Both agencies controlled by Admiral Rogers, who now serves POTUS Trump.
Ron, I have pointed out several times that the NSA had alerted the FBI and the FBI notified the DNC in Sept. 2015, of Russian attacks on their systems. Everybody knows that Russian, Chinese, etc. etc. intrusions into our government and business computer systems goes on all the time. What risk of blowback would the Russians have been worrying about? Obama didn’t do squat, until the shock of Trump winning moved that little p#$$y to make some noise. This stuff is a habit with the Russians that comes from the Cold War. Putin is still fighting the Cold War. Why are you people so resistant to the perfectly plausible explanation that the Russians are up to their old tricks? It must be emotional.
“Putin is still fighting the cold war”.
Putin has plenty of cause for complaint against the U.S. and its NATO allies. Putin’s objects are legitimate national goals. He does not peddle any cold war ideology.
Regarding state cyber intrusions that have an unfriendly aspect, Russia is not unique. Does not the U.S. IC do the same or worse? The pot calling the kettle black.
Ron Graf: “1) Did Trump make a deal with Putin?”
=== === ===
The idea of a “deal” is absurd. A wink is as good as a nod. Both Trump and Putin are men of experience in affairs. Putin would have known in 2015 that he was for Trump and enough said. The Democrats know all of this and they are furious at Trump and Putin for what they, the Dims, did against themselves.
I don’t know what world you live in, painter. Putin is a KGB creature. He is self-aggrandizing greasy corrupt dictator trying to put the Soviet Union back together using Stalanist methods he learned long ago. Any suggestion that there is some moral equivalency in what we do and what Putin does is foolish.
demonizing political opponents to sanitize war has been done for centuries. I don’t see a whole lot of purpose in comparing moral character of Putin vs Trump and/or Hillary. Flaws are evident on both sides. Yes, there are oligarchs in Russia, but there are even richer oligarchs in the US. From a Canadian perspective, I don’t see any reason why Russia and US can’t cooperate on major issues, rather than ratcheting up antagonism to suit neocons and self-indulgent Hillary boosters.
I am unaffected by the anti Russian hysteria that infects the U.S., even though I regard Putin somewhat as an eyesore.
The U.S. has ten times the GDP of Russia and the NATO alliance GDP combined is twenty times that of Russia. These facts make it impossible for the MSM Russian bugaboo to frighten me. Appeals to cold war images do not frighten me either.
Let me see if you can honestly answer this question, painter. Are you at all worried about the North Korean and Iran nuclear capabilities and intentions?
Both countries have been repeatedly threatened by US. A nuclear deterrent provides a smaller country with a form of deterrent against US aggression so that there is a mutual deterrent, thereby discouraging use of nuclear arms. Malcolm X made this point many years ago. My main worry is not NoKo or Iran, but US – particularly when US intel community, media and think tanks are so bellicose.
That is interesting, Steve. Please describe how we have threatened North Korea since the armistice ended the Korean War that was started by the North invading the South. Is it the small force of tripwire troops we keep there to deter a repeat of their previous treachery?
What about Iran? Is it the invasion of Iran that we launched to punish them for invading our sovereign embassy space and holding our people hostage? Or did we invade them for sending their Quds goons to kill a lot of our troops in Iraq with their clever little IEDs? Help me out here, Steve.
Don, I am not worried about either country, especially since we have a president who I feel assured will effectively deal with both countries and remove their fangs.
“Flaws are evident on both sides.” OK, let’s go with moral equivalence. But ask yourself how you would feel if instead of living in Canada next to the USA, you were an inhabitant of the Ukraine, Poland, Latvia or any of the other former and potentially future captive nations of the Soviet Union. Have you ever felt that Canada needed any kind of deterrence against the possibility of U.S. aggression?
I would definitely like some kind of deterrence against interference in Canadian democratic processes by US environmental groups. Over the past 20 years, NAFTA tribunals have provided some redress against arbitrary US trade actions, but offer little deterrence under Trump – particularly with such a feckless leader as Justin Trudeau representing us.
US hasn’t threatened Canada militarily for a century or so. If we faced real and present military threats from the US, I would favor Canada having a nuclear deterrent. Not to initiate an offensive, but to enable a smaller and weaker military to DETER a powerful opponent.
At a US intelligence committee hearing in June 2016, the Reagan administration ambassador warned the committee against getting entangled in alliances with Ukraine since they provided no military benefit to the US, but created liabilities for the US in regional disputes. Gorbachev has stated that the US promised not to expand NATO to the east when Russia agreed to the re-unification of Germany. Now that NATO has expanded to Russia’s very borders, it sounds to me like they have a legitimate grievance on that point.
A huge fuss has been made about Crimea, but according to my reading, Crimea is almost entirely populated by Russians and they voted to secede from Ukraine in a referendum that was just as good as the Kosovo referendum. Russia has had longstanding naval installations in Crimea and could hardly let them be occupied by NATO. Looks to me like the US is getting wagged by Ukrainian interest groups and that it’s a poor reason for international hostility.
“Flaws are evident on both sides.”
In that sentence, I was referring directly to a beauty contest between Putin on the one side and Trump/Hillary on the other. You may choose to demonize Putin and you may well be right, but Trump (especially if we listen to US media) apparently has flaws as well. As does even Hillary.
Why would we need to remove their fangs, painter? Our GDP is about a gazillion times bigger than their’s.
Don, the US IC is building a database on all U.S. citizens and the NSA and the CIA, and probably others actively gather the most intimate details about ordinary U.S. citizens in illegal ways. I suspect that the Equifax raid was part of this. If those responsible for such activity were hung, it would give me a great sense of satisfaction.I consider all engaged in such activities as “outside the law”.
OK, painter. That pretty much answers any further questions I might ask of you. Good luck. I hope they don’t get you.
I got some bad news for you, Steve. If the U.S. ever decides to get aggressive with Canada, we won’t give you time to develop a nuclear deterrence. Unless some clown like Obama or Hillary is President.
You didn’t answer my question on what aggression we have committed against N Korea and Iran that has caused them to seek the bomb to deter us. Maybe you can’t think of any. Anyway, there is always the general BS that the greedy aggressive U.S. goes around invading countries for oil. Iran has a lot we could use, N Korea doesn’t. But if that BS were true we would save ourselves a lot of money and effort by invading Mexico and Canada. Invasion probably wouldn’t even be necessary. Just a simple notice of annexation.
The historical fact is that the U.S. generally get’s involved in conflicts for self-defense or because we believe at the time that we are saving folks from some sort of tyranny. I haven’t seen anybody point out a war on which the U.S. made a profit. Picture the last century without the intervention of U.S military power.
PS: The N Korean thugs and their thug buddies in Iran want the bomb so that they can continue and increase their bad behavior under nuclear protection. Also, they will use their bombs to threaten, intimidate, extort anyone within range.
I’m quite sure that US could bomb Canada to smithereens if it wanted to.
I think that the US bombing of North Korea in the Korean War was probably the most genocidal bombing campaign of the 20th century (I hadn’t heard of it until recently). I haven’t parsed, but it appears that a higher proportion of the population (20-30%) was killed than in any other campaign, along with any visible civil installation or crop. It was under the command of Curtis Lemay, a racist who was later VP candidate with George Wallace. Its devastation against civilians was unimaginable.
http://www.newsweek.com/us-forget-korean-war-led-crisis-north-592630
In Iran – at around the same time – the CIA sponsored a coup that removed a democratically elected leader of Iran and installed the Shah, who was much hated. Two quick references:
https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-coup-mossadegh-cia-60th-anniversary/25076552.html
In the latter: “Sixty years on, the coup continues to loom large in Iran’s national psyche and remains a thorn in the country’s relations with the West.”
Both events may be forgotten in the US but reverberate to the present.
In weighing my recent comments, please keep in mind that I have consistently praised the remarkable US diplomacy after World War II which resulted in the creation of important international institutions, and the extraordinary Marshall Plan and economic restoration of Germany and Japan into friendly democracies, rather than resentful adversaries. This diplomacy was totally unlike previous European treaties.
I was having my lunch and I missed your Russia comment. What is the difference between the Crime annexation and the Sudetenland annexation? The referendum in Crimea was held after the Russian military had taken over control of Crimea. And then we have the Russian war on Ukraine. Do you not see how that might make the non-Russian folks in Ukraine, Latvia, Lituania and other former Soviet captive nations uneasy? Of course they want in NATO. All those nations have sizable ethnic Russian populations imposed upon them by the Soviet occupation. Do you think that NATO would have problems with Russia, if Russia had a normal democratic government that didn’t threaten it’s neighbors with invasions justified by post invasion referendums?
The present situation in the Ukraine is another Obama administration blunder. Russia has the Crimea, whether we like it or not. The Donbass war also is due to Obama blunders, who gave no regard to Russian interests and failed to consider possible adverse consequences. Russia could also wind up with a sizeable chunk of the Donbass.
Had not Obama interfered, the region would be in peace and there would be a friendly relationship between Russia and the Ukraine, to the advantage of both. But Obama did not want that. Putin was justified, imo. The U.S. set fire to his neighbors house, figuratively. It was an enormous provocation.
Not surprising that The Intercept and Newsweek will give you the left leaning revisionist history told from the thug N Korean perspective. The casualty figures come from the North Koreans. It’s propaganda. Nobody knows how many people were killed, except the N Koreans. In any case, they started the war the Chinese had massively intervened on their side and we bombed the crap out of them wherever possible. It’s war. They didn’t care about people getting killed by the millions. We were supposed to play nice?
And you have to go back 60 years to find an offense against the Iranians. They have gotten along without us invading them for 60 years, without having a nuclear weapons deterrence. The fact is that we have had no desire to mess with them, except for our very mild retaliations against their hostage taking and their support for terrorism. When we took out Iraq with ease, we had the resources in place to easily take out those Ayatollah fanatics. We didn’t do it. They should kiss our feet.
The Obama blunder also had the effect of precipitating the Ukraine matter into the U.S. political arena, with the Democrats working with the Ukraine government against Trump. The Ukraine is foully corrupt and now we have that source of corruption infiltrating our polity. Everything that Obama touched needs to be undone or cleaned up. Trump understands that, even if you don’t.
I know I swore off asking you any more questions painter, but I would love to have something else to hold against Obama. Just how did he cause the Donbass war?
Demonize. Steve, you are weak on history.
You do yourself no credit to repeat perverse and untrue accounts of history that have the sole object of demonizing the U.S. War is not genocide. You show a readiness to adopt any perverse twists of meaning to further your object to demonize U.S. efforts to resist communist aggression. We maintained for forty years an enormous defense establishment and poured blood and immense treasure into our effort to protect the free world and resist communist aggression.
You benefited from that Steve, and it did not cost you a dime. How about saying “thank you”?
Canada entered both World Wars long before the US and had exemplary records in both.
We agree on Ukraine. I was at university in Vietnam Era and share views of many in my generation.
Re: US Bombing and Heavy Killing in North Korea — Intercept Article
Obviously, there is much to criticize about American actions in North Korean. However, I doubt that the North Korean people really hate the US, when much of their population is malnourished due to the current government. Myself, I have always been surprised at the lack of bitterness displayed by the Vietnamese following the Vietnam war. If there were real economic relations between the US and NOrth Korea, I would expect the same.
Also, it is important to look at the bigger picture. First North Korea was the aggressor. Second, it was an ally of both the Soviet Union (Stalin) and China (Mao). Mao stated that it would be no big deal if 300,000,000 Chinese died. (““We are prepared to sacrifice 300 million Chinese for the victory of the world revolution.” http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Quotes/maoterror.htm
– Mao Zedong ) Of course, STalin was also a mass murderer. Third notwithstanding the heavy losses, the Korean Was was stalemated for two years. http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war It appears to me the North Korean leadership had the same attitude towards human life as did Mao and Stalin.
Finally, a major reason for the bombing of civilains was that NOrth Korea had little industry to target — it was being supplied by the Soviet Union and China, and the US didn’t feel that it was prudent to bomb either of the communist superpowers.
“In previous conflicts, American aerial strategy had been mainly to use aircraft to attack the enemy’s vital industrial centers. In the Korean War, this strategy was not appropriate. First, there were few industries in North Korea to attack and second, China and Russia were supplying North Korea forces, so the loss of North Korean industry did not have a great effect on the supply chain. So in the Korean War, the Americans instead used their air forces quite successfully to destroy the North Korean and Chinese air efforts, to provide close support to ground forces, and to interrupt the North Korean supply chain. U.N. forces also destroyed irrigation dams in North Korea in 1952, which led to flooding within the country.” https://www.highbeam.com/topics/korean-war-military-strategies-t10197
JD
Canadian services gave distinguished service in WWI and WWII. Also served in Korea. Vietnam War Canada not on the field, but provided a refuge for U.S draft dodgers and deserter. Gulf War a token Canadian contribution. Second Iraq War nothing. Afghanistan, Canadians fought well for a decade according to friends of mine who proudly served alongside them. Canadians will fight when they feel they have a good reason.
Steve,
I have a comment in moderation. Hope it can be pulled out.
JD
Steve McIntyre:
Russia invaded Crimea then held an unsupervised election to justify annexing it. You equate this to Kosovo, in the aftermath of a war and after years of negotiation failed, decided to become independent. I would love to hear how you would create an equivalence between an effort arising from years of negotiations and an effort which arose from a foreign power invading a country.
I’m pretty sure you would complain if the United States invaded Quebec, lied to the world about having done so then turned around and admitted it only to say it was going to hold a vote in the military-controlled zone to see if it could annex the territory.
Canadians have experience with two Quebec referendums. The question in the first referendum was deceptive but narrowly defeated. The Canadian Supreme Court was asked to give an opinion and secession and issued an opinion that a province could secede after a referendum on a clear question. The second referendum had a clear question and was likewise narrowly defeated. Neither referendum was “supervised” internationally.
As I understand, Crimea had a provincial government which asked the referendum and the question was clear. The result was not close (80-90% as I recall.) If Quebec had won a similar vote in either of its referendums, they would have separated.
If Quebec subsequently chose to federate with France (or US), it wouldn’t be any business of the rest of Canada.
Nor, to my knowledge, did Russia “invade” Crimea. Russia had legal military bases in Crimea, including its Black Sea naval bases – not through invasion, but because Crimea had been part of Russia for at least a couple of hundred years. Russia had approximately 20-25,000 soldiers at its bases legally without “invading” Crimea. Some famous Russian events occurred in Crimea (Charge of the Light Brigade, Yalta Conference). Crimea had only been associated with Ukraine for a relatively short period. It had only been transferred to Ukraine as an administrative unit in the 1950s while Khrushchev, who was from Ukraine, was Russian leader. The population of Crimea was almost entirely Russian speaking. The disintegration of the Soviet Union left a variety of border and territory issues, some of which pertained to Ukraine.
In addition, there were unsavory aspects to the February 2014 coup in Ukraine, including the role of neo-Nazis in the coup and the role of the Obama administration, who were actively involved with and supporting the politicians involved in the coup.
Wow, a lot of history…
Don, I think you meant we took out Saddam, not Iraq. Other than that I concur with your US history.
Steve, Curtis Lemay likely was still holding a WWII mentality, as was Macarthur but NC and China were not showing any sensitivities to mass casualties (including their own). There was no carpet bombing of cities in Vietnam and it still did not turn out well for anyone.
I did not hear anyone defending the CIA. It seems that all agree many of the good things the US has done, like the Marshal Plan and defending countries against invasions and terrible atrocities get’s quickly overshadowed by the black hand of US IC. The moral high ground is lost and there never seems to be much gained in historical terms except eternal enemies.
Steve, Painter, I think most, including myself, did not know of evidence of US IC involvement in the Ukraine coup, and that could be a whole blog topic. But it seems that all are reaching a common conclusion that nothing is above suspicion for those who are unanswerable to the public, press or elected officials.
I once saw Senator (D-CT) Daniel Patrick Moynihan caution a CIA director that there could come a time if they were not careful when their usefulness was not more. This was around the collapse of the Soviet Union. I was shocked. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco JFK is alleged by an anonymous WH insider, as reported a few years afterward, to have paraphrased the bible expressing his desire to: “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind.”
I just found an interesting article written by Harry Truman reflecting on the CIA just after the JFK assassination. What’s more interesting is if that was coincidence since all connections with the US IC were omitted from the Warren Commission report.
As I’ve frequently observed, I think that US diplomacy after World War 2 was a truly epochal achievement in world history.
Documents on the CIA role in, for example, the 1953 coup in Iran are only now emerging though the events still cast a long shadow.
you say: “I think most, including myself, did not know of evidence of US IC involvement in the Ukraine coup, and that could be a whole blog topic”. It’s an interesting topic that I only recently became aware of. However, it’s more accurate to say that US involvement in the coup was via the State Dept, rather than the CIA. The CIA would undoubtedly have been more professional.
Victoria Nuland of the State Dept, wife of arch neocon Frederick Kagan, was point in US interference. She met several times during the Maidan demonstrations with the political leaders of the coup, including the leader of the neo-Nazis:
Biden was very active in Ukraine events. According to ambassador McFaul, he talked to Ukrainian leaders about 12 times during the 24 hours prior to the coup. He met with coup leaders including neo-Nazi leader, as did McCain, who encouraged the Maidan demonstrations, as did Nuland. Biden continued to be overly involved in Ukraine following the coup: his troubled son was given a well-paying job by a Ukrainian energy company; he visited Ukraine on his second-last day in office.
There’s even a tape of Nuland talking with the US ambassador about who should be in the government emerging from the coup. It’s really quite amazing to listen to Obama administration officials deciding who would be involved in the Ukrainian government.
Before somebody checks, Moynihan was a Dem senator from New York, not Connecticut.
Canada could be an Ukraine to the US culture + distance wise, while Korea could be a Mexico to Uncle Sam.
In Korea it was basically Truman vs Stalin & Mao. The latter two had no compulsion to slaughter big portions of their own populations, let alone others. Putin is not at all like that; he is defensive towards another NATO grab close to Moscow after the Baltic states. Xi is more of a bully and plays aggressive with his bloodhound Kim in Korea but also elsewhere. Xi runs a financial giant while Putin presides over a economical dwarf today.
The CIA in my eyes has morphed from a new useful tool in WWII to a self-serving state in a state today. Putin and Xi run their secret services; Trump and even Obama are/were run by theirs: see Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, Iran, Pakistan.
Ron graf:
As far as I can see, neither of them has pointed to any actual evidence of this. I know this is a popular talking point amongst some, but in terms of actual evidence, I’ve seen practically nothing. Even Russia has chosen not to attempt to prove this claim, even as the United States intelligence community offered detailed evidence of Russia sending all sorts of weaponry and artillery, including tanks, to help the fight in Ukraine.
Then again, McIntyre also seems comfortable saying things like:
While I won’t agree Gorbachev said this, Russia has a long history of fabricating slights against it to justify aggression. The evidence is clear there was no formal or binding agreement to this effect. The most one could possibly argue happened was some sort of “handshake” deal that was never put into writing. Nobody could reasonably expect that to create any sort of binding agreement on the successors of the people who may negotiated it.
On top of this, Gorbachev denies this happened. Here is what he has to say on the issue:
According to Gorbachev, what happened was a discussion of how western nations would behave in regard to East Germany. According to him, the remarks he made which Steve (and many other people) refer to were made in that context. I know “NATO expansion” meme is common talking point in things like Russian propaganda, but unless one wants to claim Gorbachev is lying, there’s no basis for it.
This is why I wish people would refrain from making vague claims without any sort of reference. I am sure it took me more time to find that Gorbachev quote and discuss it than it did for McIntyre to make his specious claim. I even knew about this talking point and Gorbachev denial of it, but it still took me longer. It turns out it is much easier to parrot things you see other people say rather than actually verify anything.
I’m pretty sure that Reagan’s ambassador to Russia, Matlock, stated what you deprecate as a “talking point” in his evidence to the House Foreign Affairs Committee in June 2016. I don’t recall the precise minute. I’m fairly sure that the point has been made by credible sources. I’ll try to parse this some time.
Crimea was populated with ethnic Russians and Tatars–but Stalin kicked out most of the latter.
Crimea was a separate provincial entity at first, then joined the Russian SSR–not Ukraine.
The Soviets attached the Crimea to the Ukraine SSR in the 1950s as a political convenience given the geography.
Russia has a better historical and ethnic claim to Crimea, unlike eastern Ukraine that was always a part of the Ukraine SSR.
True, Putin did not start the Ukraine coup, but the way he handled the election in Crimea was a farce. He invaded, then set up an election in a few weeks or so. This shows a strain of disdain for democracy, he considers it a game alone. Kosovo and other election processes like that weren’t stunts like this. Nevertheless any election in Crimea would get a sweeping vote for Russia, even more than Eastern Ukraine–I am told so by a Crimean, for one.
question: do Crimeans have the right to secede from Ukraine under a fair referendum? Seems fair to me, especially given the very short and administrative attachment to Ukraine. I realize that some readers strongly object to how the referendum was conducted and Russia’s role in it. But if the result would be a vote for secession anyway, doesn’t that become moot?
I gave this a fast reading and didn’t find anything too far out of whack. The Russian military took control of Crimea before the referendum. And they have used very similar strategy and tactics in Eastern Ukraine. Entire Russian units, including Spetsnaz and anti-aircraft missile units, remove their insignia and become local Russians. There is no question about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation
The short story is that Ukraine, which has been screwed over by Russia since time began, was moving purposefully closer to the EU. The ethnic Russian President Yanukovych was part of that movement and was about to sign an agreement with the EU, when he was jerked back into his proper orbit by Putin. The doo doo hit the fan, there was an uprising and Yanukovych with Russian help killed a lot of his people and was run out of the country. He found a home with Putin. If anyone has got any evidence that the CIA had anything nefarious to do with the story, please present it. Of course, the U.S and other Western nations were interested and had preferences as to who should govern Ukraine, but there is no credible evidence they aided or encouraged the violent overthrow of the Yanukovych government. He did that to himself, with assistance from Putin.
I get real sick of seeing people who live comfortably in Western democracies casually use the U.S., and the CIA in particular, for a whipping boy. I had a career in the U.S. military-intelligence services and lived a lot of history. Spent my 21st birthday on a mountaintop in Laos, surrounded by Pathet Lao and their Soviet and Red Chinese “advisors”. If you haven’t seen any of the stuff I have seen and you are influenced by the CBC, BBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN et al, I can understand how you might have difficulty knowing the good guys from the bad guys. I will help you. We are the good guys.
what year was that?
Steve McIntyre:
Your willful ignorance of facts readily available to anyone interested in learning what happened does not speak well for you, but it does at least explain why you think the Kosovo and Crimea situations are comparable. Though since you made the comparison, I’ll point out Russia was strongly opposed to the Kosovo referendum, routinely calling it illegal. So if the situations are comparable, then by Russia’s stance, the Crimea referendum was illegal.
On the matter of facts, what Russia did was definitely an invasion. Russia had troops stationed within Crimea at Port Sevastopol (I think there was only one base, but I’m not sure offhand). This was authorized by treaties signed in 1997 between Ukraine and Russia which sought to resolve various issues of who owned and owed what in regard to Black Sea Fleet. Amongst the terms of the treaties, Russia was limited to having only 25,000 people stationed there.
No part of these treaties authorized Russian military to take control of the highways running into Sevastopol. No part of these treaties authorized Russia to send troops in unmarked uniforms to take control of airports, military bases and the buildings the Crimea national government was ran out of. No part of these treaties authorized Russians to occupy the Crimean parliament building so it could vote to eliminate the government of Crimea.
I’m pretty sure sending troops to take over military bases and hold a government’s legislative body at gunpoint, denying them the ability to contact the outside the world, so they can vote to end their current government and institute a new one headed by a person favorable to your nation counts as an invasion. I am pretty sure that remains true even if the country you do it to had negotiated a treaty with you which allowed you to have a military base or two in one of its ports.
If that doesn’t qualify as an invasion, what would?0
Brandon, you’re entirely right that Russia opposed Kosovo secession. However, the issue was referred to a World Court for an opinion and they determined that Kosovo had the right to secede. Putin cited this decision in his speech on Crimea in March 2014 – which is well worth reading for anyone interested to get the other side of the story.
While one can argue that Putin is hypocritical in doing so, it seems to me that he’s on much stronger ground in relying on the decision than US and Western governments who had argued that Kosovo had the right to secede, but now seek to deny a corresponding right to Crimea.
It was 1969. And yes, among a few other things I was directing the dropping of thousands of tons of bombs on just about anything I suspected of being commie related.
Don, thank you for your service. I just found out a person I’ve known for 30 years did 3 tours, his last job was outside official authority working out of Thailand to do hostage negotiation to get a lucky few of your buddies that got captured back. Most of the other people doing his job went MIA themselves.
We should be generous and ignore the fact that Russia militarily took over Crimea and arranged the secession. Which is their intention in the Donbass, and Estonia, Lithuania etc., if they can get away with it.
Brandon, thank you for taking the time to do that research on finding Gorbachev’s quote and the other stuff you find.
Present US has two blind eyes: one for Saudi Elite supported Muslims and the other for Chinese Xi’s expansionism. The US should embrace Russia now to oppose these two forces, which threaten them both. Choose the less evil for the more.
How many 9/11’s or 9 dash lines can you ignore?
Yeah, right. Russia is comfortable in the China-Russia-Iran-North Korea-Syria axis of bad actors. If we embrace Russia, they will just pick our pockets. They will help us, like they helped Obama do the Iran deal. Trump is working on the proper relationships with Saudi Arabia and the Red Chinese thugocracy. Watch and learn.
Steve McIntyre:
While I would certainly call Putin a hypocrite, it really is a non-issue as, as I stressed above but you ignored, the situations are not remotely comparable. I mean, the Crimean referendum wasn’t even about seceding like you preetnd. The Crimean referendum was merely about whether or not Crimea would join Russia, on the presumption it had already seceded from Ukraine.
The people of Crimea never voted on seceding which is why the refendum was illegal. The nation’s constitution required any territorial changes be voted on by all of Ukraine. Crimea didn’t even have Crimea vote to secede. All it did was have the Crimean parliament say Crimea had seceded. That was illegal. That Crimea then had a vote which effectively said, “Now that Crimea has seceded, should we join Russia?” does not make the situation in any way comparable to that of Kosovo’s.
In Kosovo, there were years of negotiations and discussions with people following the legal procedures for Kosovo to secede. A court ruled that is okay. In Crimea, Russia invaded the country then had its parliament say Crimea had seceded. You have to be incredibly disingenuous or completely uninformed to think those two situations are comparable.
The idea there are “governments who had argued that Kosovo had the right to secede, but now seek to deny a corresponding right to Crimea” is absurd.
Brandon makes a perfectly factual and logical presentation and then blows his gasket. Steve does not have to be incredibly disingenuous or completely uninformed to think as he thinks. He is just wrongheaded on this one. As he is on several other issues being discussed in this farcical thread. Several of these guys have obvious prejudices that are keeping them from thinking logically. It’s getting really tedious and I am out. Take a chill pill, Brandon. You analytical abilities and reading comprehension are generally first-rate and you have been mostly correct here, but you are really a pompous rigid self-righteous pain in the a$$.
I forgot to add humorless…out
Some people seem unaware that Obama has admitted that he “brokered the power transition in the Ukraine” (his words). In short, the U.S. engineered the Maidan coup.
This was a blunder because it prompted Putin’s counter coup in the Crimea and now Russia has the Crimea, like it or not. And it is not a question of legality or any of that kind of rubbish, but a question of whether Russia will get away with it and the answer is yes. For one thing, 85% of Crimeans are Russian and they approved it.
So Obama p*ssed off Putin who was set to benefit from closer economic ties with the Ukraine which Obama did not want. Putin’s response was predictable and Obama blundered clumsily in that he misread the board and failed to foresee how Putin would respond to U.S. interference. Concerning the Donbass, if the US can engineer a coup, Russia can too. Double blunder by Obama, who provoked Putin enormously. Obama’s stupidity is universal. Everything he did needs to be undone. Everything he touched needs cleaning up. From the perspective of Russia’s national interest, and Obama’s enormous provocation, I don’t blame Putin. The U.S. set his neighbors house on fire in order to scorch Russia.
While I agree with nearly all points regarding the provocation, I think that you’re overly personalizing and blaming Obama. It seems to me (and I claim no special insight on this) that the Ukraine policy was an objective of neocons and the State Department, which Obama ought to have stopped but was too passive/indecisive.
In a longer term, I think that we’re all better off with Crimea in Russian hands. It was a crazy and unstable situation to begin with: longstanding Russian military bases and its access to Black Sea not under its own control because of a whim of Nikita Khrushchev in the 1950s which was implemented under a dictatorship. I see it as more of a one-off situation than the first of set of Eastern European dominos. (Domino theory was, of course, what got the US into the Vietnam War.)
Thanks, Steve, interesting telephone conversation shows how Nuland chose the new Ukrainian government. Putin knew what happened in the Ukraine. The U.S. overthrew a pro-Russian government and installed an anti-Russian government to their liking. Some people think that it is fine for the U.S. to engineer a coup in the Ukraine, but villify Putin for doing the same.
Yanukovitch was elected in 2010, I believe, by a majority who were mostly non-Ukrainian ethical minorities such as Russians, Romanians, Ruthenians, etc. He called his party the Party of the Regions, reflecting its diverse support. He advocated better relations with Russia. It seems Obama immediately began laying groundwork for his overthrow. The trigger was pulled in November, 2013 when Yanukovitch accepted Putin’s economic aide offer over that of one from the EU. That was when the rioters were called out in Kiev. All the details may be sourced over the i-net.
Upon Yanukovitch’s departure from the Ukraine, one of the first acts of the Ukrainian parliament was to outlaw the Russian language (although that act was later rescinded). This gives the flavor of the Ukraine.
Steve, do you not consider that Obama publicly accepted responsibility for the coup when he announced that the U.S. “brokered” the Ukrainian coup? I do, and I do not hesitate to judge the man. You are right to say his personal failings led to the results, and we can agree on that.
What is with this coup BS? It was a popular uprising precipitated by Putin’s jerking of Yanukovych’s chain to stop Ukraine from cozying up to the EU. Putin sent in his goons to bolster his puppet Yanukovych and protesters got killed by the dozens. The Ukraine security services decided not to continue the massacre of their own people and Yanuk had to leave town. Do you seriously believe that was all engineered by the CIA? Obama’s CIA?
Of course the Obamaites took an interest in who would form a government. They didn’t dictate and pick some random clowns to put charge. They were people from the leadership of the popular uprising. We didn’t install a puppet dictator. And it was an interim government. They are having democratic elections in Ukraine. This is big power stuff. Get used to it. It is not going to change.
Don, I’ve looked closely through contemporary documents, especially videos of Maidan, and haven’t seen any evidence that “Putin sent in his goons to bolster his puppet Yanukovych and protesters got killed by the dozens”. My impression is that, by February, the vanguard of the protestors were the far right and neo-Nazis (Pravy Sektor, Svoboda etc) who threw incendiary Molotov cocktails (with acetone) at police who were surprisingly passive. There is considerable evidence that snipers in the penultimate day of the Maidan protests shot at the crowd from a building controlled by the Maidan – enough that it’s sufficiently murky to make it impossible to make categorical statements on responsibility.
To the extent that you attribute all of this to “big power stuff”, one can make the same statement about Crimea. It was clearly “big power stuff”. To the extent that your counsel to “get used to it” also applies to Crimea, I would regard that as wise advice. Not something that ought to provoke long-term hostility between two nuclear powers with many interests in common.
The coup is well documented for those who care to inform themselves. Of course it’s success relied on partisans who opposed the Yanukovitch government, but when Obama admits to the coup, how can you doubt it?
Try reading up and informing yourself on the matter. The Nuland-Pyatt telephone conversation provided by Steve is a good place to start.
I would seriously recommend that one disregard what is propagated by the present Ukraine government concerning those events.
I would seriously recommend you disregard all the Russian propaganda that attempts to cover up their role in those events.
Obama did not admit to a coup. You made that up. There was no coup. You don’t know what a coup is. There was a popular uprising in reaction to Putin engineering the halting of Ukrain developing a closer relationship with the EU. Period. Obama did not start the uprising and did not pick the leaders of the uprising. Obama did not send in troops or CIA agents to run Yanukovych out of town. The State Dept. did not run Yanuk out of town. It was the Ukrainian people who ran that Putin puppet out of town. Period. The State Dept. used the prosect of U.S. aid and recognition to influence who among the leaders of the popular uprising would serve in the interim government. Big freaking deal. The Ukraine is a democratic independent country, except for the parts that are occupied by Russian troops and their surrogates. Now spout some more Russian propaganda.
Steve McIntyre, I’ll note you have not addresses how you falsely claimed Gorbachev said what you claimed, instead choosing to change the topic to what someone else has said. fortunately, I am quite familiar with what John F. Matlock Jr. says about this issue as I actually follow his blog. There’s an interesting story about how I first came to start reading it, but I’m too sick to tell it. The point is because of reading his blog, I know his April 3rd, 2014 post on the issue of whetehr or not NATO made any such promise. The whole post is worth reading, but the crucial part is:
While I was familiar with that blog post, I hadn’t seen Matlock’s testimony in front of Congress on this issue. I went ahead and dug it up. The transcript of that hearing makes it clear Matlock was trying to make the exact same point as he made in that blog post but got cut off partway through. Matlock even tried to keep going so he could make his point when initially cut off, but it didn’t work. I found the transcript here, if you’d like to verify.
Gorbachev and Matlock both dispute your narrative. The idea western countries broke a promise, thus justifying Russian aggression, is one of the many slights Russia has fabricated to justify its behavior. Russia has a long history of doing this, often using some small fig leaf (like that detailed by Matlock) as the basis for its fabrications.
I’ll look at this and, after doing so, will endeavour to correct any inaccuracy. Interesting that you’ve been following Matlock. I thought that his testimony at the House Foreign Affairs Committee was very compelling. He knew so much that he didn’t necessarily get to the point as quickly as one would like, but everything that he said was interesting. I thought that the committee was very rude to him. I also thought that they would have been wise to focus on someone who disagreed with them and understand his point, rather than giving so much air time to McFaul.
I didn’t (or didn’t intend) to argue using concepts like “breaking a promise” justifying “aggression”.
While I may not have expressed my views as clearly as I might after some discussion, my perspective on Crimea events is premised on Canadian policy in regard to Quebec – a decision cited in the Kosovo decision (which I’ve read.) I’ve re-examined the precise question in the referendum (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26514797) which, relative to the clarity requirement set out in the Canadian decision, seems very clear to me. There is no reason to believe that voters were misled by the question or evidence that they were misled.
As you observed, the question that is asked is not simple secession, but secession combined with re-joining Russia. The question is clearly posed and seems to meet clarity standards. So I don’t see an objection on that count.
At the end of the day, the issues are 1) whether Crimeans had the right to secede and join Russia under international law; 2) whether the results of the referendum do not represent the views of Crimeans due to defects in the referendum process.
From anything that I’ve read, the results of the referendum accurately reflected the views of Crimeans and a similar result would have been obtained in any other referendum process. So if the problem is the conduct of the referendum, I think that that doesn’t matter to the result.
As to the rights of a region to separate, this has been the source of controversy forever. It seems to me that the Crimea referendum fell well within the parameters set out in the Kosovo decision. You’ve loudly disagreed but did not present any basis to distinguish the two situations.
I agree with you that Putin acted very swiftly and opportunistically. However, as I mentioned before, I think that this is best for everyone in the long run. I think that it is unwise for the US to get overly influenced by Ukrainian lobby groups.
Steve, you say
“Biden was very active in Ukraine events. According to ambassador McFaul, he talked to Ukrainian leaders about 12 times during the 24 hours prior to the coup. He met with coup leaders including neo-Nazi leader, as did McCain, who encouraged the Maidan demonstrations, as did Nuland. Biden continued to be overly involved in Ukraine following the coup: his troubled son was given a well-paying job by a Ukrainian energy company; he visited Ukraine on his second-last day in office.”
=== === ===
I take Biden’s involvement as proof that Obama was up to his ears in this business.
Trump is now in possession of the records, details, telephone conversations, etc. He will release this as it suits him, or perhaps he will clue Judicial Watch or somebody on what to seek FOI.
There is a wide range of big power stuff, Steve. Some of it is well intentioned and turns out to be good for the folks and some of it is sinister with bad intentions. Are you happy our side won the Cold War?
The U.S. did not precipitate the Ukraine crisis and certainly did not stage any coup. The recording of the State Dept. phone call that you may think is sinister/dirty involves a discussion of brokering between various factions of the popular uprising. Do you concede that the far right fanatics were left out of significant power positions in the government? The brokering was rather benign. We did not install a right wing dictator puppet. The Ukraine is independent and democratic. Do you understand that Russian troops occupy large parts of Ukraine? Google it.
Your impressions of the absence of Putin Russkis formed by looking at some videos is amusing. How would you tell a Putin Russki from a local Ukrainian? They are all pasty white Slavs with long noses. Do they wear different hats? Your impression that the popular uprising was mainly far right fanatics is wrong. Did you also get that from watching videos? Google Maidan uprising. GRU was on the scene.
I remember your citing of the Zdarsky (sic?) quote to support your impression that the DNI attribution of the DNC hack to Russia was largely based on the Steele dossier. Zdarsky did not mention the Steele dossier and you neglected to include in your cited quote the part where Zdaesky clearly stated that he thought the DNI report was reliable. I am not too impressed with your impressions.
No. Security forces in post-coup government were controlled by neo-Nazis as extreme as Pravy Sektor leader Yarosh.
Steve McIntyre:
No, I did not observe this. I explicitly denied this. For instance:
There was no option in the vote for people to say, “No, let’s not secede.” There was no option to say, “Nah, let’s keep things the way they are.” That wasn’t an option. The secession had already happened.
This is only true if one accepts the idea the Crimean referendum allowed people to vote on secession. It did not. I made it abundantly clear that it did not. That you somehow ignored what I said, falsely claimed I said domryhinh I explicitly denied and now claim:
Is mind-boggling. I don’t know how I could make this more clear. As I said before, the Crimean referendum was not a vote on secession but rather a vote on what to do based on the presumption Crimea had seceded due to its parliament having said so. (A parliament which had been effectively been taken hostage by the Russian military just a couple weeks before.)
(Your fabrication here goes even further. In addition to pointing out the Crimean referendum did not allow any vote for or against secession, I noted: 1) Kosovo’s referendum came after years of discussions and negotiations to try to resolve things in a manner acceptable to all parties, with people actively attempting to follow legal procedures for what they did. Crimea had none of that and its parties actively flouted the law. 2) Russia invaded Crimea mere weeks before the vote, taking over the nation’s military bases, airports and government buildings, going so far as to hold the nation’s parliament hostage and forcing it to instate a new leader. A couple weeks after this, while Russia was still occupying Crimea, it had the country hold a vote. No foreign force invaded Kosovo, held its elected official hostage then asked its people to hold a vote. Those are two radical differences between the Kosovo and Crimea situations, ones I’ve discussed multiple times. You’ve even responded on #2. I can’t begin to imagine how you pretend I haven’t offered these as a basis for the situations being different.)
We’re talking at crosspurposes. As I understand it, the second option of the referendum is to stay part of Ukraine.
You say that the vote was premised on “on the presumption Crimea had seceded due to its parliament having said so”. It seems to offer a choice to remain in Ukraine. Don’t understand the problem.
You say that the Crimean parties “actively flouted the law” – what law?
You say “Russia invaded Crimea mere weeks before the vote, taking over the nation’s military bases”. Whose military bases are you saying that Russia “took over”? As I understand it, the military bases were Russia’s, had been Russian for decades, and the soldiers were already legally in Crimea occupying the military bases. Because the troops were already there legally, there wasn’t any “invasion”. Is it your understanding that there were no Russian troops in Crimea prior to the incident and they were all moved there in the weeks prior to the referendum?
Steve McIntyre, I’m sorry, but I don’t see any reason I should answer questions like:
When I discussed this issue at length in response to your previous comments (that is just one example), and despite responding to my comments, you ignored what I said on these issues. That is not how discussions work. That is just stupid.
So is the idea having troops stationed in a base in a country means you can take over the country without it qualifying as an invasion. The United States has many troops currently stationed in Japan. That doesn’t mean the United States could order its troops take over Tokyo, storm the National Diet Building to hold the Japanese legislative branch at gunpoint and force them to vote on issues. That doesn’t mean the United States troops could then start spreading across Japan, taking over government buildings and Japanese military bases while being joined by troops which had not initially been stationed in Japan.
That is what Russia did with Crimea. That Russia was allowed to have troops stationed at the Sevastopol port doesn’t somehow authorize those troops to take over Crimean government buildings.
We could perhaps have an intelligent discussion of how the 1992 Crimean constitution labeled Crimea part of Ukraine while being a sovereign state (effectively, independent) due to the nature of asymmetrical federalism. We could perhaps have an intelligent discussion of the peculiarity of the referendum saying it would adopt the 1992 Crimean constitution when that Constitution was both passed and amended in 1992, meaning there was more than one version that year making the referendum’s option non-specific. We could perhaps have an intelligent discussion of many other issues as well
But we cannot have any sort of intelligent discussion if you will simply ignore everything I say when it is inconvenient, deny I’ve ever said it, then when pressed, ask me questions the content you ignored already answers in-depth. Not only is that sort of behavior on your part incredibly rude, but there’s no reason for anyone to think you’ll listen to anything I say as long as you engage in it.
However, there may be third-party individuals reading who are curious about just what Russia did. As an example, I’ll answer the question of what military bases Russia took over in Crimea when it invaded. McIntyre dismisses this idea because Russia had bases in Crimea. As far as I can tell, it only had one bases. The exact number doesn’t matter though as any bases it had were located at Sevastopol port as that was the only location Russia was legally allowed to have troops stationed in.
A few examples of bases Russia took over are: Russia forced the Ukranian nave to abandon its base at Sevastopol; Russia took over the Russia took over the Perevalne military base; Russia took over the Belbek airbase. There were many other bases taken over as well, but finding out specific information about Ukranian military bases is more work than I care to put in if nobody else is putting any effort in. These three examples are examples I remember being mentioned by name at the invasion unfolded.
Of course, the military actions by Russian troops extended far beyond seizing military bases. They also did things like confront and disarm Ukranian frontier forces in Balaklava, and scuttled a cruiser in Novoozern to trap Ukranian ships there, And, let’s not forget, Russia seized control of the Crimean government buildings and took parliament hostage.
But apparently none of this counts because Ukraine let Russia station troops at Sevastopol so Russia could make use of the port there.
Oops. I missed the first paragraph of my last comment when copying and pasting. It should have began with:
Under the ousted leader, Putin secured a 99 year lease for his naval base in Crimea. Likely the new Ukraine regime would have tried to undo that.
There was an also an understanding when Clinton expanded NATO that Russia would have a veto over NATO military operations. This was ignored in Kosovo. The Russians ended up occupying the airport, and Clinton’s buddy Wesley Clark ordered NATO forces to attack, but the British general refused. Somehow this was ignored during Wesley Clark’s brief run for President, but Putin was defending Bush against charges of illegal war saying ‘what about Kosovo?’
It wasn’t a 99 year lease, mikey. It was 25+5. We’ll let you slide on that one. but you got to furnish some evidence that Clinton gave Russia veto power over NATO military operations. Crazy.
As for South East Asia I understand president Eisenhower fear of more falling dominoes to the USSR or Mao. I guess the US underestimated Vietnam’s native resistance against any. foreign impositions, as did PR China.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War Washington also underestimated (and underused) USSR – PR China rivalry. Anyway, South East Asia today looks not too bad to me (not a draft dodger!) today.
Oh, really. It looks like he had a following of paramilitary fighters opposing the Russian invaders in the Donbass that was integrated into government services. And he became a figurehead “wedding general”. They needed all the help they could get:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmytro_Yarosh
“During the Second Battle of Donetsk Airport, Yarosh was wounded on 21 January 2015 by an exploding Grad rocket in the nearby village of Pisky.[24] He was evacuated out of the conflict zone.
In early April 2015, Ukraine’s defence ministry announced that MP Dmytro Yarosh was to become an aide to military chief Viktor Muzhenko and that his Right Sector fighting group would be integrated into the Armed Forces of Ukraine.[25]
Yarosh resigned as Right Sector leader on 11 November 2015.[6] After he was wounded on 21 January 2015 he had delegated tasks to others in the organisation and he stated on 11 November 2015 he “did not want to be a wedding general”.[6] Especially since he claimed “my positions were not always the same as the aspirations of some of the leadership”.[7] Late December 2015 Yarosh announced he was forming a new political party that would have its founding congress in February 2016.”
I don’t think this guy controlled very much of the Ukranian security forces. So I would say that you need to come up with something else to support your assertion.
“Yarosh is a controversial figure. In Russia’s state-run media he has been described as a “radical nationalist”,[33] a “fascist”.[34] Mainstream Western media has generally called him a radical or extreme nationalist. Some mainstream[35] and left-wing sources have denounced him as a “fascist”.”
Did you get your impression of Yarosh’s political leanings from Russia’s sate-run media, or from the usual left-wing sources.
Your arguments are really poorly informed and sloppy. It is not surprising that a fastidious high-strung nitpicker like Brandon would get exasperated by your style.
Please don’t assume that I’m making comments about Yarosh without information. You say “I don’t think this guy controlled very much of the Ukranian security forces. So I would say that you need to come up with something else to support your assertion.”
In the post-coup government, Yarosh, leader of Pravy Sektor, was deputy secretary for National Security, as I said. Here’s a link from a partisan source, but the fact is correct.
You also say: “Did you get your impression of Yarosh’s political leanings from Russia’s sate-run media, or from the usual left-wing sources”. I try to avoid relying on partisan sources without verifying. I’ve looked at Pravy Sektor literature and youtubes and don’t use the term neo-Nazi for Pravy Sektor lightly or without good reason.
OK, I withdraw about 63% of my comment. I will leave it up to you to decide what I got incorrect,. However, you did not furnish a link to anything about Yarosh and you did not point out that he was the Deputy Sec. for National Security in the interim government. I have looked around and that seems to be a somewhat obscure fact that didn’t get a lot of press. I get the “impression” he wasn’t in that position very long. Also you have not established that Yarosh is a neo-Nazi. Give us some examples of what he has done that resembles the horrors that the real actual Nazis are known for. I see that Russian state TV agrees with you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Sector
“Right Sector’s political ideology has been described as nationalist,[19][20] ultranationalist,[21][22] neofascist,[23] right-wing,[24] or far right.[25][26][27][28] Right Sector was the second-most mentioned political group in Russian media during the first half of 2014; Russian state TV depicted it as neo-Nazi.[29][30] The Associated Press found no evidence that the group had committed hate crimes.[22] In the 2014 Ukrainian parliamentary election Yarosh as a Right Sector candidate won a parliament seat by winning a single-member district with 29.8% of the votes.[31] Right Sector spokesperson Boryslav Bereza as an independent candidate also won a seat and district with 29.4% of the votes.”
What you are entirely correct about is that several “far right nationalist” dudes were included in the interim government in high level positions. We do not know how much actual power they had and I have an “impression” that when elections were held the far right didn’t fare well. Please correct me if I am wrong.
PS: If my country was invaded by the Russians I would be happy to have far right nationalist dudes take up arms against them.
Pravy Sektor and other right wing attacked police at Maidan in the coup, which took place well before the Crimean referendum – which was precipitated by the coup. Weapons used by Pravy Sektor included acetone Molotov cocktails. Police were lit on fire. I doubt that any of us would want that to happen to police in US or Canada.
Was that before or after police had killed lot of people who were taking part in a popular uprising against Russian hegemony?
It was after Yanukovitch accepted an economic aide offer from Russia. Yanukovitch, the candidate who had been elected President of the Ukraine who had advocated better relations with Russia. That Obama didn’t like.
Right, that Obama, the one who power transitioned Yankovitch out of office.
That is just babble, painter. Obama was not in the Ukraine, in the streets with many thousands of Ukrainians. Do you think Obama paid them all to go out there and get shot at? Do you think Obama cooked up the bad treatment Ukraine has suffered form the beginning of time, from Russians. Do you think Obama made Yanukovych back out of signing that deal with the EU that the people wanted? I will help you. He was intimidated and bribed by Putin. The Russians were already restricting trade and promising to ruin the Ukraine economy if they got closer to the EU. You are freaking clueless. If you replace Trump in the same set of circumstances, would you be hollering about him making a freaking alleged coup? You are blinded by ideology. And you have made yourself into an apologist for Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Or did Obama send in the Russian troops and shoot down that civilian airliner? This is just crazy. Why are you and Steve defending Putin? I don’t get it.
Obama didn’t like Trump either. Trump, the candidate who advocated better relations with Russia. Remember?
More babble. Playing wack a mole with Putin apologists is unproductive.
What do you think, Don, should the U.S. have better relations with Russia?
You are funny, in a pathetic way. I don’t stay awake at night worrying about having better relations with the Russians, which as long as Putin is dictator means having better relations with Putin. And I don’t know why anybody with any integrity would be an apologist for Putin.
My question was straightforward. I would guess that you disapprove of Trump’s intention of improving U.S./Russian relations.
Also, I have not apologized for Putin. Consult your dictionary. And mind your manners, please.
OK, but you have absolved Putin of responsibility for Russian atrocities in Ukraine by blaming the Ukrainians’ desire to get out from under the Russian paw, on hapless Obama. Wait a minute, that pretty much makes you an apologist for Putin.
I spent several months on the road last year, on my own dime, working for the Trump campaign. Love the guy for what he is doing to save our country from descending to third world status, but he doesn’t know everything. International relations are not exactly like business deals. The legal framework is not there. Contracts and fair play don’t mean squat. Putin runs Russia like Al Capone would run a country and he sees the U.S. as Bugsy Moran’s gang. How should we go about improving relations with an unreformed KGB gangster? What do we have to fork over? What do we get out of it? Rhetorical questions. I know your answers will be senseless.
International relations are very much like a chess game. Russia is a piece on the board. Trump sees moves that you miss, would you deny it?
Steve McIntyre:
Please don’t use disingenuous remarks to act as though people ought to have seen something. The comment you refer to was in an different discussion fork. Portraying that as “about two comments earlier” is incredibly disingenuous. Comments can be posted one after another yet be 20,000 words apart since this site threaded comments.
Also, please do not make things up about what I say:
I did not argue this claim was made up. I said given the evidence I can find, I would have to conclude it was made up. I then asked people if they could find evidence which would support a different conclusion. That is not arguing for a point. Similarly, you say:
While ignoring the fact I provided archived copies of the official listing of who held that position at times in close proximity to the reporting. If you don’t find those listing convincing, that’s fine. We can discuss why they may or may not be adequate to resolve matters. However, we can’t discuss the the (in)adequacy of the evidence I provide if you ignore the evidence I provide then turn around and ask me to provide evidence.
Did Yarosh hold the position yet not get listed on the official page? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Was the idea Yarosh was given that position created out of thin air by someone seeking to spread lies? Perhaps, but I doubt it. If I had to guess, I’d guess Yarosh was given some sort of position within or connected to that government organization. People who heard about it misreported/exaggerated it, likely by mistake. Other people writing articles saw what appeared to be a simple fact reported, saw no reason to doubt it and copied what they say.
Do I know that’s what happened? Of course not. What I do know, however, is when a person provides links to official government listings stating who holds a position and a name doesn’t appear, it is completely inappropriate to respond to that person by saying, “If you have any actual evidence contradicting this, perhaps you’d be clearer on what it is.”
How much clearer could a person possibly be than linking to the official listings of who held a position and saying, “Yarosh isn’t listed”?
Just what I expected: simplistic and goofy. Chess games have rules and the players politely take turns making their moves. No guns, knives, nukes, poison gas etc. etc. Analogies are never good and this one is really lame.
I have observed the KGB and The Donald up close. Put them in a game with no rules and with each camp having equally lethal resources, I would put my money on the KGB as the likely survivor. For example, the KGB would never make Rinse Preebus a Chief of Staff anything.
But The Donald has good instincts and he is learning. He needs to replace helpers like Jared and Ivanka with competent generals. And instead of yammering about what he is going to do to the Rocket Man, he needs to flood the zone with heavy bombers, lots of big tanks and mechanized infantry, long range heavy artillery, Apache CABs, the 82nd Airborne and at least half of our nuclear carrier strike groups. The N Korean goons and more importantly the Red Chinese thugs are not going to be convinced we are deadly serious, just by loud talk. Now fold up your checkers board and run along.
I am content that others should have your last comment as a means of judging the substance of your thoughts.
And there goes Brandon losing his doo doo, again. It was reported by a few at least semi-legitimate media sources that Yarosh was appointed to that position. Why would they lie? The U.S State Dept. bimbo was asked about the appointment and she didn’t say: “Who?” Use your freaking head, Brandon. He apparently would not have been there very long. It was a temporary cobbled together government with scant resources. So somebody forgot to put him on whatever lists you found. Who really gives a flying ____, at this point in time.
Be nice Don. And don’t call him “Yimmie”. (JC readers get it.)
I should have suggested we dwell on Ukranian coup. The thought of N*zi skin heads colluding with Victoria Nuland is just too much fun.
Little yimmie is a lot smarter than this character, Ron.
The overthrow of Russian stooge Yanukovych was a popular uprising. A coup is a different thing. Of course the Russians prefer that it be characterized as a coup.
Victoria Nuland didn’t use the Jedi mind trick to get all those people out in the streets at substantial risk to life and limb. The great majority of Ukrainians do not want to live under treacherous Russian hegemony. They have had enough of that. And once again, the gratuitous flopping of the N*zi card. Expect better from you, Ron.
Steve McIntyre:
Some time back, I kept seeing people make that claim about Yarosh and got curious because I couldn’t find the oritgin of the claim. I was curious since it seemed like it should be easy to find out who the Ukraine Deputy Secretary for National Security was yet nobody provided a source. I spent a little time looking, and I eventually came up with a Ukraine government web page listing who made up the Ukraine National Security and Defense Council.
Obviously, the current listing isn’t very helpful, but once I found that page, it was easy to look up archived versions of it. The page was archived quite a few times. Since the article linked to for this “fact” was published on March 7, 2014, here is a link to the February 20th, 2014 archived copy and a link to the March 22nd, 2014 archived copy. Neither lists Yarosh. In fact, none of the archived versions of the page do.
From what I can find, I’d have to conclude that “fact” was completely made up yet spread for whatever reason in various reporting. I’m curious if that’s true. Can anyone find actual evidence Yarosh was the “deputy secretary for National Security”
It seems odd that the Guardian would have “made up” the appointment of Yarosh as National Security Deputy. The wikipedia page on the National Security and Defense Council, which only lists the Secretaries, confirms the appointment of Andriy Parubiy as reported at the Guardian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Defense_Council_of_Ukraine.
In a quick google, I noticed that the US State Department was asked https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/war-against-ukraine/us-state-department-spokeswoman-fields-question-on-ukrainian-fascist-yarosh-insists-on-end-to-russias-military-activity-in-crimea-339045.html about the appointment of Yarosh, a “fascist” to a national security position”
It is easy to call somebody a “fascist”. Down here in the States, anybody who voted for Trump is called a “fascist” and worse. What do you think about the Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine? Is that not maybe a little tiny bit “fascist”? Isn’t the Russian annexation a tine little reminiscent of the Sudetenland annexation? You seem to think have acted with impeccable manners in the Ukraine? I wonder why the Ukraenians can’t just get along with their Russian neighbors.
Yes, the word “fascist” is vastly overused, specially @ the Guardian & co. Most thus labeled are nationalists (vs. globalists) with peaceful means and ideas. During WWII some Ukrainians collaborated with the Nazis to kill thousands of Jews, Poles etc.to end up with a ‘pure’ Ukrainian state. Recently some Ukrainians “celebrated” that process, which earned them the badge of Nazi tactic supporter https://www.timesofisrael.com/thousands-march-to-honor-nazi-collaborator-in-kiev/
That seems an appropriate label for that crowd, Antony. It could be said that the Georgian Stalin and his Russian accomplices used those tactics on a grander scale in the Ukrainian Holodomor, predating the German Nasties.
Don, in WWII had to team up temporarily with Stalin as the lesser evil against Hitler, but this only happened because the latter had stabbed his fellow dictator in the back first – operation Barbarossa.
A similar situation could arise in the future vs. an expansionist Xi or even when some Saudi leaders with oil and money combined with nuclear armed Pakistani generals get fully out of hand under some Wahhabi flag. What push is needed this time?
Steve McIntyre:
Nobody disputed that Andriv Parbuiy was appointed to this is a non-factor. What matters is you cited a source you acknowledged was biased but defended this statement by it as fact.
You respond to this disputation with incredulity, citing a question which asked about “the appointment of Yarosh, a ‘fascist’ to a national security position.” The “fact” you cited stated Yarosh took a specific position. Indeed, most reporting on the topic cited it as “Deputy Secretary for National Security,” with full capitalization, which is the correct title for a position which actually exists (when translated) which puts the person at second-in-command of that government organization.
If Yarosh was given “a national security position” but not the job of the Deputy Secretary for National Security, the “fact” you cited would not be a fact at all. Yarosh could have been given any of a hundred different jobs with vastly different responsibilities and authorities under that description.
Side note, you didn’t cite the Guardian so I have no idea why you say, “It seems odd that the Guardian would have ‘made up'” anything. Maybe the Guardian said the same thing the partisan source you cited said, but if you’re going to make a point out of that, you need to actually cite the Guardian so people can see what you’re talking about.
Guardian had been cited about two comments earlier https://climateaudit.org/2017/10/02/guccifer-2-from-january-to-may-2016/#comment-775956. I presumed that you had seen the earlier comment, but here it is again. As I observed, Guardian announced Yarosh’s appointment concurrent with Parubiy’s appointment. FYI Parubiy had previously been co-founder of a neo-Nazi party Socialist Nationalist Party of Ukraine.
If, as you argue, Yarosh’s appointment as Parubiy’s deputy was “made up”, then the Guardian was tricked. I don’t know what the Guardian relied on as a source of this information, but I doubt that they “made it up” out of thin air. If you have any actual evidence contradicting this, perhaps you’d be clearer on what it is.
Having pointed to these various media reports of Yarosh’s appointment, when one tries to trace to primary evidence – as Brandon observed – , the primary evidence is sparse to non-existent. This absence of primary evidence does indicate the possibility that media sources for their statement of Yarosh’s appointment to the specific function of “Deputy Secretary” may not be well-founded.
As someone who’s just done a lengthy parsing of TV5 Monde incident, in which inaccurate reporting played a role in misunderstanding, I can hardly exclude the possibility of mis-reporting of this incident.
Having said that, Yarosh was influential in the post-coup government and Parubiy even more so. There’s no question about Parubiy’s offices or his co-founding of the neo-Nazi Socialist Nationalist Party of the Ukraine. Nor, in my opinion, is there any reasonable quibble about neo-Nazi influence in the post-coup government.
Brandon, Here’s an article from Channel 4 News which I had read earlier and relied on regarding Yarosh (logged in Zotero). It stated that Yarosh was “overseeing the armed forces alongside Parubiy as the Deputy Secretary of National Security” and discussed Parubiy’s co-founding a neo-Nazi party. (I’ve collected some information Parubiy).
If Yarosh’s appointment as deputy to Parubiy is “made up”, as you argue, media were deceived at the time.
Counterpunch on March 11 also reported on Yarosh’s appointment:
Leader of Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) in Ukraine calls for mass deportation:
http://www.stalkerzone.org/ukrainian-tv-head-right-sector-kiev-called-deport-population-donbass-en-masse/
Upon further consideration, it appears that the citizens of the Crimea were motivated by concerns of self preservation and these fears were not baseless, given the virulence of hate directed at Ukrainians of Russian extraction. The murderous intent of the neo-nazis is very much evident in these videos, links and other sources. If I were a citizen of the Crimea I too would welcome Putin’s intervention. The Russians of the Donbass likewise have cogent reasons to fear the Maidan insurrectionists. The Ukrainian ultra-nationalism is repugnant in its virulence.
As example of hatred, consider this hacked telephone call in which Hillary’s pal, Yuila Tymoshenko, proposes genocide against 8 million Russian citizens of Ukraine.
I really hate how WordPress handles threaded comments. You should be able to collapse forks to reduce clutter and prevent comments from landing in the wrong location. Oh well. My response landed here by mistake:
Julia Tymoshenko is a prominent figure in Ukrainian politics. In 2011 she was convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to seven years imprisonment and ordered to repay $188 million(!) to the state. She was released from prison at the Maidan. The Ukrainian parliament abolished the law under which she was convicted!!
Thus the Ukrainian Freedom Fighters.
Unsurprisingly, Tymoshenko’s enrichment through politics was an inspiration to Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Clintonista Victoria Nuland objected stridently against the idea that Tymoshenko should be penalized for corruption. https://still4hill.com/tag/yulia-tymoshenko/
changed some spelling to get out of moderation
OK, I withdraw about 63% of my comment. I will leave it up to you to decide how to apportion. However, you did not furnish a link to anything about Yarosh and you did not point out that he was the Deputy Sec. for National Security in the interim government. I have looked around and that seems to be a somewhat obscure fact that didn’t get a lot of press. I get the “impression” he wasn’t in that position very long. Also you have not established that Yarosh is a neo-Nasty. Give us some examples of what he has done that resembles the horrors that the real actual Nasties are known for. I do see that Russian state TV agrees with you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Sector
“Right Sector’s political ideology has been described as nationalist,[19][20] ultranationalist,[21][22] neofascist,[23] right-wing,[24] or far right.[25][26][27][28] Right Sector was the second-most mentioned political group in Russian media during the first half of 2014; Russian state TV depicted it as neo-Nasty.[29][30] The Associated Press found no evidence that the group had committed hate crimes.[22] In the 2014 Ukrainian parliamentary election Yarosh as a Right Sector candidate won a parliament seat by winning a single-member district with 29.8% of the votes.[31] Right Sector spokesperson Boryslav Bereza as an independent candidate also won a seat and district with 29.4% of the votes.”
What you are entirely correct about is that several “far right nationalist” dudes were included in the interim government in high level positions. We don’t know how much actual power they had and I have an “impression” that when elections were held the far right didn’t fare well. Please correct me if I am wrong.
PS: If my country was invaded by the Russians I would be happy to have far right nationalist dudes take up arms against them.
I have a comment stuck in moderation which calls into question the idea Yarosh ever held that position. I don’t rule it out entirely, but the evidence I can find indicates that claim isn’t true.
We are impressed, Brandon. I saw a reference to Yarosh in that position on Steve’s link and one other place. Other articles and wiki type sources do not mention it. Like I said, maybe nobody was interested enough to write about it. In any case, Steve has got nothing to justify labeling Yarosh a neo-you know what.
“The Associated Press found no evidence that the group had committed hate crimes.”
According to the AP they have found no evidence Yarosh that is one of those neo-you know whats.
Keep up the good work, Brandon. You will one day receive major prizes. At least, that’s my impression.
I found another reference to Yarosh as Deputy National Security whatever:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/04/who-governing-ukraine-olexander-turchynov
Left loon Guardian, but I think it is credible. It mentions that there are a handful of righties in the government, including the Deputy PM. Doesn’t label anybody a neo-Nasty.
Steve: here’s screenshot from your Guardian link:
You should try checking the official Ukranian webpage which lists the identities of the people who hold positions like that. I did. There are plenty of archived versions of it. None of them mention Yarosh holding that position. I discussed that in the comment currently awaiting moderation.
I’ve also looked for any official Ukranian announcements saying he was being given that position/currently held that position. I couldn’t find any. All I can find is people saying it without sources (unless they link to another story which failed to provide a source). Maybe someone who speaks the language would have better luck.
It looks to me like Yarosh held that position. Maybe not long enough to get a paycheck.
I don’t see any justification for calling him a neo-Nword.
In any case, I have been proven wrong when I said:
“Do you concede that the far right fanatics were left out of significant power positions in the government?”
The Deputy Prime Minister is a righty. But he seems to fall well short of being a neo-you know what:
The Guardian gives a left loon summary of his “far right” beliefs:
“Sych, 49, is a member of the far-right nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party. He is an anti-abortion activist and once publicly suggested that women should “lead the kind of lifestyle to avoid the risk of rape, including refraining from drinking alcohol and being in controversial company”. He has attracted criticism from women’s and human rights groups.”
That guy is a real monster. No woman would be safe around him. Makes Harvey Weinstein look like a saint. Anyway, to the right of Stalin is far-right to the Guardian and fellow travelers. If you are to the right of Jimmy Carter, then you are a neo-Nasty.
Yesterday from the Daily Caller:
This seems to support that the digital life-insurance against foul play scenario. Although the attorney client privilege lasts forever, as tested in the Supreme Court in a case where investigators tried piercing it to gain evidence in the death of Vince Foster, it is possible for the executor to pierce it only for the interest of the estate or if such power is expressed in a will. Presumably, Awan figured the DNC would not risk it. I am open to other theories if a more plausible one is offered to fit the circumstances.
I wonder who/what the attorney is? The phone booth, or the laptop? I think the Supreme Court has ruled back in 1922 that you have waived attorney client privilege, if you leave the evidence on a laptop, in a phone booth, in a building that ain’t yours.
They don’t need help from their friends the CIA (anymore); they don’t like Wikileaks; surely they love the Atlantic Council (with various W. Ukrainian sponsors).
Steve / US Intrusions into Canada:
Soros’ fingerprints are all over threats to our natural resource development, export, and pricing. His Tides Foundation via Tides Canada and probably a thousand other ‘eco-money-laundering’ mechanisms have been shown to be implicated in NGO suppression of our very potential livelihoods. Some readings of Vivian Krause’s blogs and columns should be required backgrounders to even a start of discussion on the topic.
I entirely agree about the pernicious role of the Tides Foundation.
As long as the US countenances and supports such interference in our democracy, I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy for their complaints about supposed Russian purchase of Facebook ads.
Steve, “My main worry is not NoKo or Iran, but US – particularly when US intel community, media and think tanks are so bellicose.”
I am surprised by your comment. The US would NEVER launch a preemptive nuclear weapon.
2 videos on Pravy Sektor; one on Crimea
That guy with his girlfriend’s letters proves that the Western democracies are evil and Putin is nice, like Santa Claus. Now I hope Putin finishes the liberation of the rest of Ukraine. Then he can move on to free Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland etc. etc.
This discussion is sickening.
Don, did you hear Victoria Nuland say Fu*k? She puts on like a church lady. Did you the Princess Leia-looking chick say she wanted to kill 8 million Russian-Ukranians with nukes? Are these phone conversations real or some kind of new voice emulation technology? Can I have Leia be my new navigation system voice? The world is getting too complicated. I don’t know what to believe. It was so much simpler when Uncle Walter just told us what to believe and then sign-off assuring: “…and that’s the way it is..” (Walter Cronkite was the iconic CBS News anchor circa 1960s-70s.)
Phone conversations are real. Post-coup government went exactly according to Victoria Nuland’s plan. In December, prior to the coup, Nuland told Chevron conference that US had invested $5 billion in Ukraine (through NGOs and political support presumably) to ensure “secure and democratic Ukraine”.
Yeah, I see/hear those audios. I am really shocked that girl Nuland said that bad word. Mortified. Sick to my stomach. My phony outrage is almost out of control. She should be fired. And I am shocked, mortified, sickened, irritated, miffed, etc. etc. that any Ukrainian would get all emotional and talk BS about wiping out millions of Russians. Where does that kind of visceral enmity come from? Does she have little nukes that can selectively kill Ukrainian Russkis and not harm the actual Ukrainians?
Come to think of it, if I added up all the times I said I wished I could kill somebody or some group that had pissed me off, it would add up to considerably more than 8 million folks. And the Russians would be included. They and their surrogates tried to kill me enough times to make the list.
Maybe we should have saved our $5B and let the Russians take over all of Ukraine. The Ukrainians would just have to get over it. We would have better relations with Putin. We could actually make money. We just assure Putin he can take Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania for $5B each. We could get 10B for Poland. We take payment in gold so we don’t get stuck with counterfeit. Can’t trust the KGB.
Victoria Nuland is married to Robert Kagan, one of the founders of the warmongering Project for a New American Century, leading advocate of the foreign adventurism that has so damaged US politics.
The PNAC’s basic claim to fame is their lobbying for the ouster of Saddam Hussien. That wasn’t hard to do. The problem was that we stayed on and tried to oraganize that rabble of desert creatures into a modern society. The lesson from that is that we want to remove a despot we roll through the country with a lot of violence, kill the head of the snake and move on. We can always go back, if they misbehave in the future. An d it is a lesson for the other snakes to consider before they get out of line. This is called the Monfort Doctrine. Trump is considering it.
Don, Russia had Ukraine and the Baltic states till 1990/1 but let them go, just like Israel let go of Gaza. It went well till they turned hostile towards their big neighbor.
Would the US tolerate a hostile Canada and Mexico, supported by Russia or China?
Putin is a clever ex-KGB tug yes, but Russia does have genuine security concerns, like any nation.
That is a brilliant analysis, Antony. Russia is in danger from Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia et al, like we are in danger from Canada, Mexico and Costa freaking Rica. You are talking foolishness. I have to believe that you people don’t get out much.
Cuba
Antony: “…Russia does have genuine security concerns, like any nation.”
This is what I remember coming out of Pravda to excuse the iron curtain and Soviets world adventures. I know you and Steve have not been replaced with Russian troll bots because, well… Wait a minute. What was the name of your first pet?
There is always an excuse for aggression. Even A.H. did not blitzkrieg (usually) without a pretext.
BTW, are you saying that Putin is not a de facto dictator?
OMG! What did Antony retort? Did he say Cuba? I guess we can stop now.
Wikipedia has several articles of interest:
“Ukrainian Collaboration in WW II”
“The Holocaust in the Ukraine”
Nasty WWII group: Ukrainian People’s Militia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_People%27s_Militia#Ukrainian_People.27s_Militia_instructions
The “nasty”/Nazi OUN was led by Stepan Bandera and Yaroslav Stetsko – both reasonably called Nazis. In western Ukraine, Bandera is regarded as hero. In one of the demonstrations prior to the coup, here’s a torchlight procession with portrait of Bandera.
Public statues of Bandera have been erected in major western Ukrainian cities:
How many of those far far right fanatics got elected to the parliament and higher offices in the recent free and democratic elections in Ukraine, Steve? You must know.
A lot of Ukrainians saw the Germans as the lesser of two evils, or even liberators. Why would they be so spiteful towards the Georgian Stalin and his Russki accomplices? And why would Ukrainians today still be pissed off at the way they have been historically oppressed by their Russki friends? Can’t thy let bygones be bygones? Shame on the Ukrainians for trying to cozy up to the Western democracies. What were they thinking?
Just heard from a young Russian colleague who has an uncle living in Crimea: they have had a very hard life since Crimean separated: Ukraine cut off all water, gas & electricity. They are waiting for the bridge etc. to Russia to get finished.
“Cut off all water, gas, and electricity”
It is not unlikely that the Ukraine would have done this anyway. There is little doubt that the present government has extreme antipathy toward those of Russian extraction. The Ukrainian parliament outlawed the Russian language. The Russians of the Ukraine have good reason to fear for their wellbeing. At best, they would be an oppressed minority. The neo-n*zis would happily exterminate them.
The Wikipedia article on Crimea shows that at least since 1897 there have been much more Russians in Crimea than Ukrainians. For example in 1970, Crimea was 67% Russian and 26% Ukrainian. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea — demographics section. No matter the shenigans that Putin may have instigated, it seems pretty clear that, if there was a fair election Crimean citizens would vote to join Russia.
JD
That was the same rational the Western democracies used to sell out all of Czechoslovakia over the German populated Sudetenland. So, what about Eastern Ukraine? Is Russia also entitled to that? They have already taken it, but shouldn’t we, to be consistent, legitimize the theft? How about the parts of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia with a lot of ethnic Russians? Hell, let’s just simplify this and take it to it’s logical conclusion. Whatever countries have a lot of Russians planted by Stalin, belong to Putin. Many of you people are scary. Whose side are you on? Wouldn’t we have to give them Brighton Beach?
Scary people today: Wahhabis, (neo)Nazis, CCP leadership. All violently intolerant of others, even in small quantities. The Wahhabis are even terrible towards their own ~50% women on top of that.
Don Monfort: “That was the same rational the Western democracies used to sell out all of Czechoslovakia over the German populated Sudetenland.”
You are unhinged comparing Putin to Hitler and raising the Sudetenland issue. Putin has an unsavory history, but it is not remotely comparable to Hitler. Crimea was part of Russia up to 1953 and was transferred to the Ukraine in 1954 with no input by the Crimeans. As I posted in reply to Graf, it is probably virtually impossible to conduct a fair election now when one considers the machinations of the Russians and the Ukrainians.
It should also be noted that Sudetenland was 90% German and had about 3,000,000 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland Following WWII, they were virtually all expelled from Czechoslovakia. (In many cases for colloboration with Nazis, which is understandable) My point being that ethnic minorities within a larger country face very complicated risks and that the history of Sudetenland can’t be explained in a simplistic manner.
My further point being that Russia’s seizure of Crimea is not the simple black/white issue which you are trying to make it.
JD
I didn’t see this unhinged crap comment of yours, JD. Must have popped up out of moderation. Anyway, you need to inform yourself on the Sudetenland-Munich debacle. Give them an inch and they take a mile. Mr. AH wasn’t just after the Sudetenland. His own generals were appalled by his plans to conquer Europe and would have attempted to take him out if he had not been handed huge victory by the Western democracies.
I didn’t say that Russian seizure of Crimea is a simple issue. It is however a clear issue. Crimea was a part of Ukraine. The Russian military take over of the Ukrainian government apparatus in Crimea was illegal and the referendum was illegal. And you would see that fact if it happened in some other part of the world. What is with this impulse too many of you people have to make excuses for Putin’s blatant bad behavior? Is it fear?
It is hard to catch some of these comments when Steve inserts them some time after the comment stream has moved on. And I still have a comment in moderation on the next thread.
Steve, you are not familiar with the conditions and events in East Ukraine. I don’t have the time or inclination to go into it deeply. I doubt that you would be impressed anyway. I will point out that most people in Ukraine are Russian speakers, who mostly also speak Ukrainian. In 2010 Ukraine elected an ethnic Russian, who speaks Russian and can’t communicate very well in Ukrainian. That’s indicates how much they discriminate against Ukrainian Russians. Or maybe you have some details and evidence of some specific wrongs committed against Russians in Ukraine by ethnic Ukrainians. What about the Russians living in Western Ukraine? They seem to be fine.
There has not been a Ukrainian suppression of Russians in Ukraine. That story is Putin KGB BS propaganda. The difference between Eastern Ukraine and Syria is that the U.S has no desire or reason to remain on Syrian territory. Putin has no intention of leaving Syria. Syria was in the Soviet sphere and it will remain there with the help of Iran and Hezbollah. Putin is determined to retake as much of the Soviet empire as he can and has no intention of leaving Eastern Ukraine. And every freaking body who has been paying any attention at all knows that the Russian military is responsible for defeating the Ukraine military in Eastern Ukraine, not some band of locals. Do you think some local militia owned and operated that sophisticated anti-aircraft missile system that shot down many Ukraine military aircraft and that civilian airliner? Are you aware of the recent Putin invasion of Georgia? Are you aware of any of his treacherous shenanigans? Chechyna? Didn’t they want to secede from the Russian Federation and got slaughtered? Maybe it’s all OK. Just the normal Stalinist KGB stuff. Putin must have some plausible reason for all his actions.
I have another comment in moderation. I’ll stop until I am sure I am not completely and utterly wasting my time.
any comments in moderation are caught by system for some reason. I clear out moderation bin when I come online. Sorry about that. While we disagree on some issues, issues relating to Syria, Ukraine etc are very murky; reasonable people can disagree and I like hearing the other side.
Frank, you forgot to mention Putin’s delusions of resurrecting Soviet/Russia status as a world power. His costly meddling in Syria, his foolish investment of billions to prop up the ridiculous socialist regime in Venezuela etc. etc. Russia can’t afford that crap. Hopefully, they will go bankrupt again. Putin will flee to Cuba with his hundreds of billion$.
JD: “… if there was a fair election Crimean citizens would vote to join Russia.”
This assumes that political issues like freedom are insignificant compared with being united with a country with a common language. They certainly could have ask for a fair election or risen up if they were denied it. They did not get to make that vote.
Graf: “They certainly could have ask for a fair election or risen up if they were denied it.”
With all of the machinations going on between Russia and the Ukraine, I believe it would have been virtually impossible to conduct a fair election. That being said the annexation of Crimea, which had recently been a part of the Soviet Union as recently as 1953 is, in and of itself, not a major foreign policy issue that the US should be concerned with. I realize that if the US did virtually nothing it would encourage Putin to be more aggressive in other areas, but with respect to the actual narrow issue of Crimea becoming a part of Russia, it is probably the correct result.
JD
I entirely agree with this analysis.
JD: ” …it is probably the correct result.”
Historical claims and sovereignty are multifaceted issues that the world would better not be settling with military invasions. I think process matters.
The citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria would all agree on this.
Ron, all depends on whether the Russians of the Crimea were threatened by the Maida thugs. The thuggings and the anti-Russian bigotry of the Maidan uprising must be taken into consideration. High minded ideals cannot obviate ground truths.
Nice work lawyering for Putin, JD. But you made a mistake. Crimea was a part of the Soviet Union as recently as 1991. Anyway, 1953 still works. Ukraine was also part of the Soviet Union as recently as 1991. Putin has already taken the eastern part back. No big deal as there are a lot of Russians there who don’t mind being re-integrated into the neo-Soviet Union that Putin is assembling. Doesn’t concern us.
So, when Putin invades another of the former captive nations of the old Soviet Union we should not get uptight about it. As long as his troops/goons remove their shoulder patches and paint over the identifying markings on their tanks. And somebody has to stamp out the anti-Russian bigotry in all those formerly captive nations. For example, I been in Hungary and I know they really hate the Russians. They so need to get straightened out. We really should give Alaska back. We most certainly cheated them on that deal. Very little money for all that land and natural resources. Hey, it might improve our relations with Putin.
A lot of borders in the world need to be re-drawn. JD could make a nice business out of providing the legal justification for various Border Re-adjustment Invasions. I will write the TV commercials for you, JD.
Steve, what about the Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine. Is that OK too?
I am not as familiar with eastern Ukraine as I ought to be. It’s my understanding that these areas were Russian-speaking, attempted to secede from Ukraine and have been attacked by the central government dominated by western Ukraine. I’ve read accounts saying that the resistance is local (though undoubtedly obtaining weapons from outside) rather than an “invasion” by Russian military. I don’t have personal knowledge. I think that the term “invasion” is being used loosely to describe different things by different people. Do you regard US as having “invaded” Syria? Probably not and yet it has 10 or so military bases in Syria, established against the wishes of the Syrian government. Does Russia have military bases in eastern Ukraine? I don’t know, but I don’t think so.
Ron Graf: “Historical claims and sovereignty are multifaceted issues that the world would better not be settling with military invasions. I think process matters.”
Ideally it does. However, many times it is impractical. I suspect that the grievances between the Catalans and the Spanish are a lot less than those between the Russians and the Ukrainians. However, the election process is not working in Spain/Catalan. The chances of it working in Crimea are even less. Maybe the military solution in Crimea is ultimately for the best.
JD
Nice work Steve. You just keep spouting the Putin propaganda spin. Russian troops have invaded Eastern Ukraine. Google it. You are being willfully ignorant. No reason to discuss this any further with you and some of this crowd you got here. Putin has got you bamboozled. It’s almost hilarious.
Monfort: “So, when Putin invades another of the former captive nations of the old Soviet Union we should not get uptight about it.”
If that happens we will deal with it then. Crimea is different.
Monfort: “We really should give Alaska back. We most certainly cheated them on that deal. Very little money for all that land and natural resources. Hey, it might improve our relations with Putin.”
You are making ludicrous slippery slope arguments that aren’t remotely related to Crimea. Similar to the domino theory that led to many mistakes in Vietnam. Doubt that I will bother to respond to any of your further posts.
JD
You continue your slippery evasion. What about Eastern Ukraine, counselor? That’s related to Crimea. Is it OK for Putin to take that too? How much Putin land grabbing do you think is excusable? There are a lot of Russians throughout the former Soviet Empire that he could rescue.
The principle is that land grabbing is not OK. It should be discouraged. Land grabbers should be shunned and should suffer some unpleasant consequences for their land grabbing. Making excuses for land grabbing is dumb. It just encourages more land grabbing and intimidation of less powerful nations. Putin is nobodies’ savior.
It will be fine with me if you don’t reply. I’m gone. Too many willfully ignorant Putin apologists here.
Re: “The citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria ”
I half agree, as does Trump. Iraq perhaps could have remained under no-fly and resumed inspections rather than invasion. Afghanistan was a terrorist training camp that already had internal opposed armed factions. Libya could have possibly saved if Gaddafi had agreed to bring in peace keepers in exchange for control. Syria diddo. I think common denominator was over-optimum as to what follows a dictator. Even Russia backslid into dictatorship.
JD, I think that Don has a point that just because a new government is more favorable to west vs. east does not necessarily put all the population with eastern blood in immediate peril. The definition of anti-Russian bigotry is likely like all places, a sliding scale and it’s potentially much exacerbated by Putin intentionally.
But Ron, anti-Russian bigotry of Ukrainians does not need exaggerating.
Russians of the Donbass dominate the urban areas, the Ukrainians the countryside. Influx of Russians into this area began in the late nineteenth century when coal and mineral exploitation, along with industrialization, started . It seems that Russians were preferred to Ukrainians for employment in these industries. This preferment of Russians at the expense of Ukrainians seems to have continued during the Soviet era. This policy was implemented in the Crimea after WW II when a depopulated Crimea was settled with Russians.
To continue, these deliberate policies plus other, more brutal injuries under the Soviets, seems to have indelibly fixed the hatred of Ukrainians against Russians. There was little love lost, however. Ukrainians have historically felt antipathy toward Russia, as far back as the days of Peter the Great. Nationalistic animosities are nothing new, but these Ukrainians call to mind the worst of the n*zis under H*tler.
Ron, some of these characters have either been bamboozled by Russian propaganda or they just agree with the way Putin rules. For whatever reason, they spout the Putin party line BS that Ukrainians in general are Russian hating neo-Nasties who somehow forced Putin to roll into the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to save the ethnic Russians from whatever.
First problem with that BS is that Putin does not hesitate to jail or exterminate the Russians in Russia who cross him. He is a bloody dictator. The Ukrainians weren’t suppressing Russians. Those alleged neo-Nasty Russian haters elected a freaking ethnic Russian President, who was getting along fine doing what the people wanted by forging closer ties to the EU, until Putin coerced him to back off. The people got real mad and ran the bum out. How does that justify the Russian military takeover and annexation of Crimea? How does that justify Putin’s support of the Russian insurgents in East Ukraine with heavy weapons, armor, sophisticated anti-aircraft missile systems and Russian troops? That amounts to a de facto annexation of East Ukraine. But don’t worry, bloody dictators always have limited territorial ambitions.
It is just bizarre that these otherwise seemingly intelligent characters just ignore Putin’s bad motives and actions. Putin is a Stalin wannabe.
Here, Don, this should help your understanding. I copy my comment from below:
The Maidan uprising has been presented as a popular uprising against an unwanted government. Although this view has been widely propagated and accepted, it is hardly the truth. It was in fact an uprising against a popularly elected government organized by those who lost the election. The closer one looks at all the aspects, the neo-n*zism, the nationalist bigotry, etc., the worse it appears.
I have no affection for Russia or Ukraine. Bottom line: Putin is an expansionist dictator. Military invasion of neighbors requires the highest standard of international support. I saw none here.
Yeah, I saw that comment. It’s just as foolish the second time around. How did a ethnic Russian, who can barely speak Ukrainian, get elected President in a country (Ukraine) of hateful anti-Russian neo-n*zi Ukrainian bigots? I will help you. Yanukovych campaigned on a platform that was in sync with the popular desire to emulate and integrate with the Western democracies in the EU. He negotiated an agreement with EU to advance that relationship, Putin jerked his chain, Ukrainian people who don’t want to live under Russian hegemony got mad at Putin’s puppet, revolted and the rest is history. Your story is KGB Putin propaganda. What does our man Trump think about all this? I know. You don’t have a clue. Here try to figure it out. Use that giant brain of yours:
https://www.google.com/search?q=donald+trump+crimea&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS759US759&oq=Trump+crimea&aqs=chrome.5.69i57j0l5.26410j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Can you explain any legitimate reason for declaring Iranian RGC a “terrorist” organization? Trump admin seems more interested in IRGC and Hezbollah than AlQaeda and ISIS. When US says that Iran is leading sponsor of terror, what is factual basis for this as opposed to Saudi Arabia or Qatar?
Requires international support? More of a question of can you get away with it:
Cuba 1898
Mexico 1916
Bay of Pigs 1961
Dominican Republic 1965
Grenada 1983
Putin will get away with it, imo. The Ukraine will have to settle with Russia on the Donbass issue; they have no alternative. Otherwise they get no NATO membership (which requires an applicant to have its affairs in good order, internally and with its neighbors).
Trump and Putin will reach an accommodation, I feel assured. Putin has the Crimea and maybe part of the Donbass.
Nobody has lifted a finger to help the Ukraine, militarily, except..guess who?
Canada ! 🙂
Trudeau’s Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, has Ukrainian background. Her grandfather has been reported to have been connected to SS (though it’s questionable that Freeland was aware of this until recently).
Painter, I see now you are correct. The US is just like N@zi Germany and the Soviet Union, grabbing and dominating neighbors. It’s all clear to me know that I have been brain washed into thinking that democratic principles have any special connection to legitimacy. You forgot Hawaii and the Philippines.
Ron, I simply meant to point out that in statecraft the only legitimacy is national interest coupled to pragmatism.
For those who insist on high moral principles and “international law”, Putin has cited the Kosovo precedent, but that is mostly for home consumption; otherwise he does not need it even though it fits the circumstances.
All nations respect Russia’s interest; none have intervened in the Ukraine militarily except the fluffhead Trudeau who has sent 800 “advisors” to the Ukraine.
I would point out that the Kosovo “principles” of self determination can legitimately be claimed for the Donbass as well as the Crimea.
Putin can give the bird to anyone who squawks about “principles”. Thus we see the foolishness of nations who try to legitimize their interventions by formulation of “principles” a la Kosovo. Thus these clowns have provided Putin with the means to prettify his grabs.
Painter, I don’t understand how the Kosovo precedent helps Putin’s position or hurts the cause of self-determination and democratic principles. In the post WWII era the US and western goals have not just been to contain communism but also the spread of dictatorships. Anti-communist dictatorships were only supported as the least bad option in attempting containment of the spread of communist dictatorship. But, in the post-Soviet era the Neocon principle was born that fledgling democracies would be viable in the absence of Soviet targeting. What we found was that Iraq-type democracies are still dangerously unstable due to cultures where democratic principles are not valued highly enough to overcome religious and ethnic divisions.
Putin is emulating Soviet policy of supporting dictatorships like Iran, Syria and N Korea. While the US admittedly support Saudi Arabia in exchange for stable world oil and had supported a Egyptian dictatorship in exchange for a stable Israel neighbor, we did not cling to Mubarak when the people rose up in the name of democracy. If Donbass or Crimea long for the Soviet Union days they should be allowed to rejoin an expanding Russia. But there needs to be a more lengthy process than Russian un-uniformed troops and unmarked tanks ceasing the country.
I meant seizing. But ceasing works too.
And now Trudeau has an embarrassment: a Foreign Minister who ducks questions concerning her family’s connection to the n*zis plus a wrong headed military commitment that he can’t get out of without admitting that he goofed. May he continue to accumulate such baggage.
For those who liken Putin to a dictator:
2012 election results:
Putin 63%
Communist Party candidate 17%
Third candidate 8%
Fourth candidate 6%
Not pretty, yes; dictator, no.
Russians like him very well.
And yes indeed, Putin can cite the Kosovo principles for window dressing, but as I put above, he doesn’t need it. Ron, as I have endeavoured to show, an overly moralistic approach to statecraft clouds understanding.
Putin is not the first dictator to win an election. Dictators always win elections. You are really a character.
I might add that the present Ukrainian government was established following the overthrow by insurrection of a popularly elected government, the U.S. participating in this overthrow to such degree that it named the members of the new government. The U.S. immediately recognized the new government, naturally enough, having spent uncounted billions to install it. Obama has a record of this sort of behaviour. Any Russian might hold his nose at the U.S.
So pot, meet kettle.
Hi Don, missed you. Figured that if I posted Putin’s election majority that would bring charging out of the bushes. Welcome back! 🙂
The U.S. didn’t spend billions to install the Ukraine inteim government. The billions were spent to support the new government and the Ukrainian people, who were and are under attack from Russia-Putin-KGB. The U.S. did not pick the leaders of the interim government. They brokered and agreement among the leading factions of the popular uprising that threw out a bum who had knuckled under to Putin. You are blinded by your justified hatred of Obama. If Trump does the same thing some where else, you will fawn all over his brilliant accomplishment. You are a lightweight.
“You are a lightweight”
== ====
Nice little puppy dog, you won’t bite, will you? Promise?
mpainter: “I would point out that the Kosovo “principles” of self determination can legitimately be claimed for the Donbass as well as the Crimea.”
While there may be some parallels, the difference between Crimea and Kosovo is that the US and Europe attempted to negotiate a peaceful solution to the problems in Kosovo (and Bosnia before that). Russian special forces not wearing uniforms seized Crimea within days of Yanukovych’s flight and dismissal by Parliament in late February. The timing proves this was an opportunistic military coup by Putin.
The US didn’t sponsor a coup against Yanukovych, we participated in and endorsed successful negotiations to keep Yanukovych in power. However, when demonstrations continued, Yanukovych fled the country.
Steve: “…When US says that Iran is leading sponsor of terror, what is factual basis for this as opposed to Saudi Arabia or Qatar?”
1) 1979-1981 52 American embassy hostages held for over a year.
2) Support for Hezbollah taking American and UK hostages in Lebanon during mid 1980s.
3) Smuggling of arms and rockets to Hamas and Palestinian terrorists.
4) Quds Force of IRGC killing US solders with armor piercing IEDs in Iraq and supplying to Sunni terrorists.
5) Involvement in Yemen.
6) Involvement in Syria.
7) Involvement in Afghanistan.
Their “peaceful” nuclear program has us a little biased against them too I suppose.
thanks for response. I’m aware of embassy situation – as you may recall, Canada helped out. I recall the Lebanon incidents, but 1980s is a long time ago, prior to growth of Al Qaeda, and doesn’t seem particularly relevant to supporting allegations on Iran’s present role.
6) Involvement in Syria. – in what way does their involvement in Syria warrant charges of supporting terrorism? They’ve fought against ISIS and AlQaeda.
5) Involvement in Yemen. Yemen’s complicated and role of US in regime change reverse of that in Syria. In Yemen (as I understand it and don’t claim authority), Shia Houthis had effected regime change against previous Sunni dictator. In response, Saudi and US have sought to restore previous dictator’s regime. AlQaeda in Yemen flourishes in Sunni territory, not Shia. Iran has presumably sent arms to Shia Houthi, as US has sent arms to Saudis. Why is one side “terrorist” and not the other.
7) Involvement in Afghanistan. – it strikes me that US has had far more involvement in Afghanistan than Iran. I don’t know the facts of Iranian involvement in Afghanistan (a neighbor) and can’t discuss. But if merely supplying arms to one side of a civil war constitutes “terrorism”, doesn’t that apply to both sides?
4) I’m not familiar with Quds Force issues – I thought that Iranian forces were fighting ISIS in Iraq. Indeed, I recall reading a story that the ISIS advance on Baghdad was only stopped because of Iranian intervention. Are you sure that Iran supplied arms to Sunni terrorists? I thought that Iran supported Shia. In general, I thought that US and Iran were fighting on the same side in Iraq – though seldom discussed in public.
Steve asked: “When US says that Iran is leading sponsor of terror, what is factual basis for this as opposed to Saudi Arabia or Qatar?”
You can read the official Congressionally-mandated DoS report for 2016 (released in late July 2017 by the Trump administration). There are separate sections for state sponsors of terror and terrorist organizations. There may be many individuals in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Pakistan (plus parts of the ISI) who support terrorist organizations, but these countries have no official relationship with any terrorist organization and they are generally meeting their international obligations to fight terrorism. Iran’s and Syria’s support and funding for Hezbollah, Palestinian and other terrorist organizations is official government policy. Iran allegedly contains training camps for terrorists. Saudi Arabia is supporting Islamist groups in Syria, but apparently none that are on our list of terrorist organizations. Pakistan may be the biggest sinner
https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2016/
There is a section on COUNTERTERRORISM COORDINATION WITH SAUDI ARABIA
You say “Saudi Arabia is supporting Islamist groups in Syria, but apparently none that are on our list of terrorist organizations.” Who’s been supplying money and arms to AlNusra (AlQaeda) and ISIS then? Some of the arms come from the US via “moderate” rebels who defect, re-sell or lose control of US arms, but there’s more than that.
Frank, you neglected to mention
1) Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to join Russia, results which are sure to be confirmed in a second referendum
2) Russians in the Donbass declared themselves independent shortly after the Maidan coup.
3) The Kiev self-declared government lacked legitimacy, having supplanted by insurrection a popularly established government.
The bigoted nationalism of the Maidan insurrectionists justified the Crimeans and the Donbass.
Thinking about the Canadian analogy some more – and I really do think that Canadian experience of living through Quebec referendums gives us a distinctive and relevant perspective, I can say the following with 99.99% confidence:
If Canadian federal government had a French-speaking Prime Minister (as we have had regularly), his government were overturned by English-speaking “nationalists” in an Ottawa Maidan spearheaded by ultra right-wing demonstrators from Western Canada and the new government than banned or attempted to ban use of the French language, then Quebec would secede in a heartbeat.
Re-examining contemporary events, it’s amazing to see that on February 23, 2014, effectively on its first day, the post-coup government voted to repeal a 2012 law, which had somewhat recognized Russian language rights (much, much less recognition than French in Canada):
While the repeal seems to have been subsequently stalled, such an attempt would have been the death knell of Quebec in Canada.
Till now 2 mayor facts about Kosovo have not been touched: a) this novel mini state is 96% Muslim;
b) the 955 acres US camp Bondsteel there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel
The usual US effort to assist useful Sunni Muslims to the hilt, even inside Europe.
Here are some links to contemporary discussion of Kosovo-Crimea comparison.
Putin’s speech of March 18 making the argument: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20603
National Post in Canada reported Putin’s argument as opposed to arguing against it: http://nationalpost.com/news/world/crimea-has-always-been-part-of-russia-bellicose-putin-defends-annexation-of-ukrainian-territory
Many contemporary articles attempting to distinguish Crimea from Kosovo: Guardian, WaPo, Slate, Conversation.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/17/putin-referendum-crimea-kosovo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/24/crimea-kosovo-and-false-moral-equivalency/?utm_term=.70f43d19abb3
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/03/putin_s_crimea_revenge_ever_since_the_u_s_bombed_kosovo_in_1999_putin_has.html
http://theconversation.com/putin-should-know-that-crimea-is-not-kosovo-when-it-comes-to-self-determination-24916
A reply denying the distinction from Open Democracy:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/luca-j-uberti/crimea-and-kosovo-delusions-of-western-military-interventionism-nato-putin-annexation-legal
To quote Mick, “THEY WAS HAND PICKED!”
Antony: “The usual US effort to assist useful Sunni Muslims to the hilt, even inside Europe.”
The US displaced and Sunni government with a Shiite one in Iraq. What is your reasoning for the US to have bias toward Sunni? Saudi influence? Perhaps yes. Saudi Arabia has become a US ally, especially since 1991.
Steve, I agree that the US is certainly self-interest influenced by the rankings on our terrorist sponsors list. Who is without bias? That does not make us the Great Satan or Israel the Little Satan. On the Iran supplied armor piercing IEDs I was referring to the Iraq War 2003-2008 but I’m pretty sure they made it into the hands of both Shia and Sunni. Iran’s main interest was to sabotage the US presence or foothold of influence. We naively would presume Iran would thank the country that dislodged Saddam Hussein and sons in favor of Shiite’s taking power.
Just as the N@zi’s scapegoat was a certain ethnic minority, Iran’s scapegoat is the US and Israel. Russia, being “surrounded by foes” has served as their historical scapegoat. Of course, the foes are only because of fear for the preservation of their national borders. This is much like the French Canadian example; to avoid conflict one must trust the other side with significant compromise facilitating a positive cycle of trust. Pinnacles of power attract alpha personalities (like Trump, admittedly). But countries that lack the institutions to keep leaders from becoming dictators fuel the greatest dangers to humanity. Hitl*r was more popular in Germany as late as 1939 than likely any German leader since. Free press and rights of unfettered opposition are critical. Do you think Russia and Iran have these?
I’ve not researched either topic. Quebec government was dominated by Catholic establishment through the 1950s and democratically changed. Iran appears to have enough educated people to emerge as a modern country. Far more likely than Saudi Arabia, with which US has uncritically allied itself.
US attempts to extinguish anti-militarism views as “Russian propaganda”, with bizarre investigations into trolls, doesn’t reflect well on a long tradition of free press, but hopefully this fever passes.
“…Countries that lack the institutions to keep leaders from becoming dictators fuel the greatest dangers to humanity.” This is the basis for the Neocon policy. Their flaw was in thinking that outsiders can install democracies that will be valued and preserved by the indigenous nation. However, peoples of neighboring autocracies are can be encouraged to exert rights (i.e. Arab spring) providing at least some productivity for the cost of the endeavor.
Frank said: “Saudi Arabia is supporting Islamist groups in Syria, but apparently none that are on our list of terrorist organizations.”
Steve asked: “Who’s been supplying money and arms to AlNusra (AlQaeda) and ISIS then? Some of the arms come from the US via “moderate” rebels who defect, re-sell or lose control of US arms, but there’s more than that.”
According to the link I posted:
“ISIS receives most of its funding from a variety of businesses and criminal activities within areas it controls in Iraq and Syria. Criminal activities include robbing banks, smuggling oil, looting and selling antiquities and other goods, as well as extortion, human trafficking, and kidnapping-for-ransom.”
“AQ primarily depends on donations from like-minded supporters, as well as from individuals who believe that their money is supporting a humanitarian cause. Some funds are diverted from Islamic charitable organizations.”
Steve wrote: “Some of the arms come from the US via “moderate” rebels who defect, re-sell or lose control of US arms, but there’s more than that.”
When the Syrian civil war started, there were a lot of doubts about the reliability of the Free Syrian Army and reluctance to arm them. I suspect that ISIS got most of its equipment when the poorly led Iraqi army fled from Mosel and other Iraqi towns. The link below discusses recent shipments – which I assume are all going to the Kurdish alliance (whom I assume are reliable) and the rebels near the Jordanian and Israeli borders.
http://www.businessinsider.com/weapons-us-sends-to-syrian-rebels-2016-4/#762×39-mm-1
Steve wrote: “Here are some links to contemporary discussion of Kosovo-Crimea comparison.”
These discussions focus on the status of Kosovo under international law. The International Court of Justice has ruled that Kosovo’s independence is legal. However, since international law is ignored under exceptional circumstances, I think non-legal factors are also important
There was no genocide in Crimea. Kosovo declared itself independent when Yugoslavia broke up in 1992, but no one except Albania recognized its existence until it suffered from genocide. After NATO intervention, diplomatic solutions were pursued for a decade before a unilateral approach to independence was adopted.
Putin intervened in Crimea a week after the disappearance of Yanukovych. There was no attempt to reach a political solution. A “vote” was held two weeks later and Crimea was declared independent. Two days later it was annexed by Russia.
Kosovo was not annexed by any of the countries that intervened militarily to free it.
I suspect the West would have been glad to see Yanukovych re-instated as part of a multi-party coalition government and the violence investigated by an impartial panel. Restoring order is nearly impossible after a revolution in which one large group seizes power from the other. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that Putin knew closer economic ties between the Ukraine and Russia (rather than the EU) had become impractical. Therefore he told Vanukovych to flee and seized Crimea during the crisis. Insurrection in Eastern Ukraine would be inevitable without a diplomatic solution and the seizure of Crimea would prevent any diplomatic solution.
A comment on Crimea from experience in mining business. One of my associates, who grew up with miners and was a miner, emphasized the importance of paying miners fairly since, if you didn’t, they’d take stuff to end up with what they thought was “fair”. Russia had fought for Crimea and it was the scene of important Russian history and events. Khrushchev’s unilateral transfer of Crimea to Ukraine during his regime and the chaos of the demise of the Soviet Union left a situation in which Russia lost its key naval base and Black Sea access other than through lease. It was unfair to Russia and was a major problem even though none of us were paying any attention to it; perhaps the neocons smiled at the net result.
When the Ukrainian coup took place, Putin took advantage to redress what was perceived in Russia as a historic injustice. While many people are concerned about domino theory, there are so many unique aspects to Crimea that it is just as reasonable (or more reasonable) to view it as one-off. In fact, I think that the world is probably safer and stabler with this solution to the Crimea problem, rather than having it linger as a dispute between Russia and a NATO-ized Ukraine. The prospect of US troops at Sevastopol naval base, delicious as it may be to neocons, would be an enormous and undeserved provocation and we should be glad that it has been circumvented.
I agree entirely with your assessment, Steve. Crimea became part of the Ukraine by some quirk of Soviet history and if Gorbachev (or whoever) had transferred the Ukraine back to Russia, say, a week before its dissolution in December, 1991, this quirk would have been remedied. The Crimeans were never Ukrainian and the preference of the Ukrainian people was never consulted until March, 2014. Thus this unhealthy demographic aberration and potential bone of contention has been cured and amity among nations may now proceed. My impression of Ukrainian nationalism is that national minorities (Romanians, Poles, Russian, Czech, others) will be subjected to discrimination and repression.
Rather, the preference of the _Crimeans_ was never consulted
Don’t annoy them with mere facts and logic, Frank. Crimea and Eastern Ukraine belong to Russia. And they will get the rest of Ukraine, if KGB Putin can pull it off. No wait a minute, KGB Putin’s territorial appetite has been satiated. Peace in our time!
“Peace in our time!”
####
Yes, the Ukraine has no choice but to settle with Russia. This is the fruit of Obama’s meddling. Such futility, but the Crimeans are happy and the Donbass is hopeful.
Steve wrote: “Russia had fought for Crimea and it was the scene of important Russian history and events. Khrushchev’s unilateral transfer of Crimea to Ukraine during his regime and the chaos of the demise of the Soviet Union left a situation in which Russia lost its key naval base and Black Sea access other than through lease. It was unfair to Russia and was a major problem even though none of us were paying any attention to it; perhaps the neocons smiled at the net result.
When the Ukrainian coup took place, Putin took advantage to redress what was perceived in Russia as a historic injustice.”
I disagree with this conclusion. The chaos and injustices created by the breakup of the USSR were addressed – at least in part – by mutually agreeable negotiations between the Russia and the Ukraine over the next decade. (This was a period when Russia and Ukraine were both weak and desperately struggling with internal problems. Russia declared bankruptcy in 1998.) The Soviet Black Sea fleet was split by Russia and Ukraine; Russia was given the right to lease the existing naval base in Sevastopol. By signing a lease, Russia recognized Ukrainian jurisdiction over Crimea. With the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, the Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan agreed to dismantle Soviet ICBMs located in their territory under international supervision in return for a guarantee of their territorial integrity (which all parties recognized included Crimea) signed by Russia, the US and the USSR.
Putin asserts that the 2014 revolution cancelled this commitment to Ukraine, because the Ukrainian government that signed it no longer exists. That is absurd. Yanukovych fled, but most of the Ukrainian Parliament remained in place and held internationally monitored elections and installed a new government.
Due to the difficulties in ending the Civil War that followed the Revolution in 1917, Communist Russian was formally constructed in 1922 as a union of separate republics that could be dismantled – the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. (perhaps analogous to the Articles of Confederation that governed during and immediately after the American Revolution.) However, all of the administrative areas and competing ethnic groups that had been ruled by the Russian Empire did not fit neatly into 12 Republics. A number of locally autonomous areas were created within various republics to satisfy the ethnic groups that dominated these areas. Many of them have seen disputes and fighting, most prominently the Chechen Autonomous Area that was administered by Russia. Crimea declared itself an Independent republic in 1918, became part of the USSR as an autonomous part of the Russian SSR and later was transferred as an autonomous area to the Ukraine SSR. I believe it retained significant autonomy within the Ukraine after the USSR broke up. When the Ukraine voted to leave the USSR in 1992, 56% of Crimean voters agreed to do so as part of the Ukraine.
Now that Putin has come to power and gained strength, he is trying to reverse the breakup of the USSR. He has increasingly resorted to force rather than settle disputes on his borders by negotiation and compromise. He started by reconquering Chechnya. He expanded Russian involvement in disputes within the former Georgian SSR. Now he has seized Crimea by force and is using Russian soldiers and equipment to prevent Ukraine from regaining control of two provinces that rebelled in 2014. Mounting threats to the Baltic countries have forced NATO to station tripwire forces there.
Steve added: “In fact, I think that the world is probably safer and stabler with this solution to the Crimea problem, rather than having it linger as a dispute between Russia and a NATO-ized Ukraine. The prospect of US troops at Sevastopol naval base, delicious as it may be to neocons, would be an enormous and undeserved provocation and we should be glad that it has been circumvented.”
NATO-ized Ukraine? You’ve been reading to much propaganda. IMO, ethnic Ukrainians look towards the EU (not NATO) because it offers more rights, less corruption, better government and more prosperity than an association with Russia.
I don’t think the world has been made safer by the unilateral and unprovoked military takeover of Crimea. I say unprovoked, because little happened IN CRIMEA that required Russian involvement THERE in the week between Yanukovych fleeing and Russian seizure of control (AFAIK). Crimea was pure opportunism made more likely by Obama’s passivity in his second term. Events in Kiev certainly provoked Putin, but Putin had many diplomatic options for addressing that problem, especially natural gas supplies. I suspect that there will be fighting in the Ukraine until the Russia controls all of the Ukrainian provinces along the Black Sea lying between Russia and Crimea.
I thought it was stupid to expand NATO into Eastern Europe and the Baltic states. Those countries need to reach mutually-agreeable solutions with Russia and their neighbors to the problems that persisted after the breakup of the USSR. I don’t want to be dragged into a war with Russia by a corrupt distant government that settles disputes with violence in the street (with some Nazi symbols). Nor by Estonians who deny citizenship to ethnic Russians who can’t speak Estonian. However, history has taught those peoples to fear Russian aggression and domination, and Putin has called the breakup of the USSR the greatest tragedy of the 20th century. That creates a demand for protection from NATO. I can’t find anything to distinguish Hilter’s occupation of the Rhineland and Austria from Putin’s seizure of Crimea. The ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine resemble the Germans in the Sudetenland. If you remember correctly, compromise over the Sudetenland was followed six months later by the complete takeover of Czechoslovakia. That lead the British and French to guarantee Polish territorial integrity. The neo-cons you disdain wouldn’t have let Hilter get that far. Without Churchill, the Brits might have settled for peace with Hilter.
However, parallels in history are dangerous. The neo-cons certainly got many things wrong in Iraq. We rebuilt Germany and Japan into prosperous allies, but have mostly failed since. Iraq appears to be a failure, but surprisingly not as bad a failure as Syria. With half the population, Syria has already experienced as many – possibly twice as many – casualties as Iraq under our control. When we left Iraq, there was a functioning government, elections and little violence. Both countries started with horrendous dictators from minority populations.
Reagan ambassador to Russia Matlock, who had serious experience, had wise words to House Foreign Affairs Committee on the principles of allying. He urged that military alliance be avoided if it embroiled or potentially embroiled the US in disputes at the will/whim of the lesser state while the lesser state offered no military benefit to the US. The HFAC was uninterested unfortunately. Matlock had too much backstory in his answers, but, if the committee had been more patient, they could have learned a lot.
Those are just pesky facts, Frank. Easily resisted by those who are impervious.
Then Obama, Biden, Nuland & Co. stuck their fingers in the pie. Or was it neo-n*zi pudding?
This somehow went astray. Maybe will do so again:
Frank, you forgot to mention Putin’s delusions of resurrecting Soviet/Russia status as a world power. His costly meddling in Syria, his foolish investment of billions to prop up the ridiculous socialist regime in Venezuela etc. etc. Russia can’t afford that crap. Hopefully, they will go bankrupt again. Putin will flee to Cuba with his hundreds of billion$.
Then Obama, Biden, Nuland & Co. stuck their fingers in the pie. Or was it neo-n*zi pudding?
Again, Frank, you neglect to mention that the Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to join Russia. You also ignored the circumstances that prompted the secession of both the Crimea and the Donbass. Again.
The Ukraine trusted in Obama and now….?
A couple d’etat that backfired and that cheated, empty feeling.
Russian position:
On 4 March 2014, Russian president replied to a question on violation of Budapest Memorandum, describing current Ukrainian situation as a revolution, when “a new state arises, but with this state and in respect to this state, we have not signed any obligatory documents”.[12] Russia stated it had never been under obligation to “force any part of Ukraine’s civilian population to stay in Ukraine against its will.” Russia suggested that the US was in violation of the Budapest Memorandum, describing the Euromaidan as a US-instigated coup.
#####
A fine legal squabble.
On 10/13, Steve asked: “Can you explain any legitimate reason for declaring Iranian RGC a “terrorist” organization? Trump admin seems more interested in IRGC and Hezbollah than AlQaeda and ISIS. When US says that Iran is leading sponsor of terror, what is factual basis for this as opposed to Saudi Arabia or Qatar?”
The WSJ reported today that the CIA has just released transcripts of material seized in Abbottabad when Bin Laden was killed. They apparently show far more cooperation between Iran and Al Qaeda than one might have expected given the conflict between Sunni and Shia.
“‘In my experience, the Iranian regime is the best example…of pragmatism in politics,’ the al Qaeda official wrote in the document. ‘Anyone who wants to strike America, Iran is ready to support them and help them with money and arms and all that is required as long as they are not directly and clearly implicated.'”
“Iran welcomed al Qaeda fighters as they fled Afghanistan who were mostly based in Zahedan, a city close to the Afghan border. Tehran offered the fighters shelter, money and weapons as well as training in camps run by its proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon. The author said he didn’t know whether any al Qaeda fighters ultimately ended up in Hezbollah training camps. A priority for Iran, according to the author, was to encourage the jihadists to target the U.S., particularly in Saudi Arabia.
“”They offered some of our Saudi brothers… money and arms and everything they needed,’ the al Qaeda official wrote. ‘They offered them training in the Hezbollah camps in Lebanon in exchange for striking American interests in Saudi and the Gulf.’”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cias-bin-laden-files-shed-new-light-on-qaeda-iran-ties-1509659871
It appears as if Iran was willing to assist any type of Islamic terrorist group at the time this intelligence was collected, but Iran did not want to be publicly associated with Sunni terrorists (except for Hamas). It is fair to say that this intelligence is dated and reflects Iranian policy a decade or more ago. (The CIA is unlikely to be releasing new intelligence unless it is needed to get Congressional or public support.)
ISIS became an important force only after Bin Laden was killed, but its precursor, Al Qaeda in Iraq, was supported by Syria (they retreated across the Syrian border) and apparently also directly by Iran. After ISIS exploded in Syria and Iraq in 2013-2014 and groups linked to Al Qaeda became important in Syrian, Iranian policy had to change. I don’t know if Iran currently supports Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or North Africa (where few Shia are involved), but they still support Hamas.
you missed the forest for a tree:
(Sunni)Bin Laden was hidden inside (Sunni)Pakistan (mayor non-NATO “ally”), not in (Shia) Iran. The Shia minorities in Pakistan and Afghanistan get frequent heavy terror attacks from radicalized Sunni groups.
El Qaeda is fighting (non Sunni) Assad since years in Syria, next to their rivals of ISIS.
If Israel stays out of Lebanon, Shia Hezbollah loses its last motive to support (Sunni)Hamas.
AntonyIndia replies: (Sunni)Bin Laden was hidden inside (Sunni)Pakistan (mayor non-NATO “ally”), not in (Shia) Iran. The Shia minorities in Pakistan and Afghanistan get frequent heavy terror attacks from radicalized Sunni groups…
Steve’s question was why Iran was still considered the #1 state supporter of terrorism – given that ISIS is now the main threat and Al Qaeda is spreading. These are Sunni groups and the normal assumption is that Shia Iran would never cooperate with a Sunni group.
My point was that the assumption that Iran doesn’t support Sunni groups (especially Al Qaeda) is wrong. The evidence I provided shows that Iran supported Al Qaeda until Bin Laden was killed. If you were a Sunni terrorist group interested in attacking the US or Saudi Arabia, Iran was probably willing to help – at least until ISIS threatened Syria and Iraq.
Iran openly supports a number of terrorist groups and provides no assistance to the West’s struggle against terrorism.
Pakistan has formally cut any ties with groups considered to be terrorists by the US and cooperates with Americans working on terrorism inside their country. Without their cooperation, we would have never found Bin Laden. Of course, we all know that there is much sympathy for terrorism among the Pakistani people and the ISI; and that terrorist groups outside the control of the government live in the “tribal territories” and disputed areas of Kashmir.
Bin Laden hid half a mile from Pakistan’s West Point for years till 2011. Recently:
“Dr. Shakil Afridi, the physician turned CIA asset who was instrumental in determining the location and identity of Usama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, is hailed as a hero in the eyes of American officials. But to the Pakistan’s top brass, he remains a criminal traitor who is likely to spend many more years behind bars, with authorities standing firm against any U.S. diplomatic endeavors to have him released.” http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/09/21/pakistan-officials-adamant-that-hero-doctor-who-helped-capture-bin-laden-remain-behind-bars.html
And: http://nation.com.pk/04-Oct-2017/isi-has-links-with-terrorists-mattis
Regarding Donbass; this area is supposed to sit on huge shale gas layers. Ukraine was massively in the red with Russia for gas imports; the EU always needs more natural gas; US gas companies don’t want more competition in this field. Another cause to fight for. http://shalegas.in.ua/en/slantseve-prykryttya/
The Ukraine is a welter of political corruption and ugly nazified nationalistic bigotry. Crimeans have escaped that. It is amusing that some here revile Russia while embracing the Ukraine as a paragon of virtue. Trump was not fooled. Good for Trump.
You are just oozing with pride in Putin. And do not have a single freaking clue about Trump’s position on the Crimea annexation. Pathetic.
Candidate Trump seemed to be opposed to US entanglement in Syria, Libya and even Afghanistan, and, to advance US interests through better relations with Russia if possible. Trump in office seems to have adopted a pretty standard neocon policy, to which he’s added his own unique bellicosity. Easy to picture Trump picking a fight on Crimea. To what practical end? Dunno. But the neocons must be salivating at the prospect.
You are just making crap up. You don’t have a clue about Trump. He has had plenty of time to “pick a fight” on Crimea. You should stick to statistics.
In foreign policy, Neocons believe in democracy promotion. Whatever can be gotten from the muddle of Trump’s foreign policy thinking, it is not based on democracy promotion. Trump is in no way either in domestic or foreign policy a neocon.
neocons seem to be decisively on Saudi Arabia’s side as opposed to Iran. why?
Chants of “Death to America” do not resound throughout Saudi Arabia as in Iran. Perhaps this carries no weight with you, Steve.
I can understand that this is disquieting, but it’s a different issue than “democracy”.
I see. Saudi Arabia is a kingdom and Iran is sort of democracy. Well, let TAG explain.
Issues of democracy aside, there are plenty of reasons to favor Saudi Arabia against Iran.
Interestingly, anyone in the kingdom may personally petition the king. He has an audience with such petitioners daily and gives his personal attention to each petition, with the reservation that no one may petition a matter being adjudicated in the courts.
H.R. McMaster had the unenviable task of finding a coherent pattern in Trump’s word salad of foreign policy statements. He has described Trump’s policy as “principled realism”. That is “realism” except when it isn’t. Although to described Trump’s policies, if they can fit under any coherent term, as “realist” is to stretch the term. In any event, Trump is not, in any way, a neocon.
TAG, your hate for Trump is smelly.
Trump has tacked and one possibility is that he has received an unequivocal message from Iran expressing a willingness to discuss Trump’s objections to their behavior. That is one possibility. There are others.
It is noteworthy that Haley, McMaster, and Tillerson have all just given notice of this “shift”.
Candidate Trump was all over the map on foreign policy. One minute wanting to bomb them to hell, the next minute lamenting any prior engagements.
President Trump is pretty much the same, except the actors of most importance have changed (N. Korea).
He does not have a consistent foreign policy.
“No consistent foreign policy”
Meaning one written in stone? One that is rigid and inflexible? One that is clung to obstinately while circumstances change?
Good for Trump
“One written in stone”
Not necessary.
“Good for Trump”
Not really. There is no evidence at all there is a guiding philosophy. It seems more like a case of whoever Trump last spoke to has the best policy to follow.
Good for Trump anyway. MAGA
Kan Kan Kan, I remember when some wag wrote during Reagan’s campaign against that foreign policy genius, Jimmy Carter, “You could wade through Reagan’s deepest thoughts and not get your ankles wet.” He got our hostages back and ran the Soviet Union bankrupt.
Obama’s foreign policy was to be nice to Muslims, bow to potentates and dictators, give a way a lot of money and open our borders. Trump’s foreign policy is America first.
Any questions?
Trump’s friend the Crown Prince of Saudi is cleaning house. Jailed the dirty rich prince, who said bad things about Trump. Things are getting very interesting. Son in law Kushner just made a hush hush trip to Saudi.
Trump is a subtle fellow despite his outward demeanor. If Trump challenges the validity of the Crimean referendum in the U.N. Security Council and demands a new referendum conducted under the auspices of U.N. observers, that will finalize and confirm Russia’s possession of the Crimea because the results will confirm the first result. Trump is perfectly capable of such subtleties. I cite this possibility to illustrate the moves available to an astute President.
Lots of moves on the game board that are not readily apparent.
The Maidan uprising has been presented as a popular uprising against an unwanted government. Although this view has been widely propagated and accepted, it is hardly the truth. It was in fact an uprising against a popularly elected government organized by those who lost the election. The closer one looks at all the aspects, the neo-n*zism, the nationalist bigotry, etc., the worse it appears.
Sure. Protests that when on for 3 months in winter before the final bloody conclusion were stage managed by the opposition (probably with money provided by Victoria Nuland). They opposition’s former Prime Minister was tried convicted and sent to jail – but that didn’t cause protests. They began when Yanukovych backed away from a popular deal with Europe in favor of closer economic ties with Russia.
After Yanukovych fled, the Parliament (with about 1/4 of its members absent) voted unanimously to remove him. By that time Yanukovych wasn’t very popular/
mpainter wrote: “The Ukraine is a welter of political corruption and ugly nazified nationalistic bigotry. Crimeans have escaped that.”
Yes, I’m sure that the Crimeans will be much better off controlled by an authoritarian kleptocracy run by an ex-KGB agent who is now the richest man in the world. Personally, I’d prefer to live in the Ukraine, where elections have resulted in real change in government. Despite nationalistic passions, there isn’t single party rule by an authoritarian state. Ukrainian isn’t the only official language. There is some hope that things will get better there, or would be without Putin. Things are pretty bad elsewhere in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, but getting better in some areas.
If your fellow citizens had been forcibly incorporated into the Russian empire and its Communist successor, ethnically cleansed from some areas and replaced by Russians, suffered through a brutal civil war as the Communists consolidated power and then Stalin’s collectivization and purges; you too might also be a “nationalistic bigot” who looked upon the Germans as liberators. Putin would certainly paint you as being Naz1, whether you were or not. All the ethnic groups who sided against the USSR were Naz1s, from the Finns and Balts to the Serbs.
The Russian empire disintegrated in 1990, something Putin calls the greatest tragedy of the 20th-century. Millions of ethnic Russians were left outside the borders of Russian. Putin believes that all ethnic Russians are his responsibility and is trying to reverse history. The same thing happened after the end of WWI and that led to Adolf Hilter’s campaign to re-unite all German speakers inside a Third Reich. I’m not eager to bear any responsibility for resolving these nationalist passions (citizenship in Estonia required an ability to speak Estonian), but appeasement didn’t work well in the past either.
Frank, for some reason facts don’t matter on this topic. KGB Putin’s propaganda seems to have been very effective on these guys The Ukrainians are Russian hating neo-N*zis, who wanted closer relations with those other Russian hating neo-N*zis in the Western democracies and Putin was forced to order his troops to remove the insignia from their uniforms and move in to save the ethnic Russians, from blah blah blah, by seizing large parts of Ukraine. I guess the removing of the patches on their uniforms makes it OK.
Don writes: “for some reason facts don’t matter on this topic. KGB Putin’s propaganda seems to have been very effective on these guys.”
I know facts matter to Steve and some others who read this blog, but today it is harder than ever to separate fact from fiction. Other people appear to live in what seems like a dream world or echo chamber – unless, of course, I am the one who is dreaming. So, it appears to be worthwhile to listen for facts that disagree with my world view and share a few facts and links that might be useful to others.
I think one basic problem begins with the fact that we have words – Naz1, neo-Naz1, fascist, or Holocaust – that instantly convey the crimes against humanity committed by the Germans (and other right wing groups). However, we don’t have an equivalent word for communist or left wing groups whose crimes against humanity are comparable: Lenin’s and Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, the Kymer genocide, Vietnamese re-education camps and 3 million Vietnamese leaving Vietnam. Based on what was known in June of 1941, the Ukrainians probably should have looked at the Germans a less evil than the Communists. The Holocaust hadn’t begun yet. However, Einsatzgruppen followed closely behind the front with orders to kill all the Jews in occupied Russia.
Frank, Steve McIntyre still denies Russia invaded Crimea. He refuses to even look at the fact Russian troops did things like take over Crimean government buildings, to the point of holding the Crimean parliament captive.
I can’t see any evidence facts matter to him on this topic.
Brandon, my original point was that Russian troops were already in Crimea legally and did not “invade” it – as I understand the term “invasion”, it requires forced entry. On this point, I’m not sure whether we disagree on facts or on the semantic issue of whether an “invasion” requires forced entry.
On the factual issue of whether Russian troops held the Crimean parliament captive: I was aware that right-wing factions had taken over the Ukrainian parliament during the Maidan coup, but wasn’t aware that Russian troops had held the Crimean parliament captive. Can you send me a link for this?
Frank, Brandon, there is plenty of cogent argument supporting self determination by the Crimeans. Those who try to make it sound as though Crimeans did not enthusiastically join themselves to Russia are simply ignoring the truth. So Putin is a thug. So are the Maidan nasties.
Pot, meet kettle.
Steve McIntyre:
And as I’ve pointed out, which you’ve never responded to, authorizing Russian troops to be stationed in one city in your country in no way authorizes them to start a military campaign in which they take over your country. Even if you want to rely on some weird semantic argument where you say a military takeover isn’t an “invasion” because the troops were already within the borders, Russia used troops which had never been stationed in Crimea in addition to the ones which had been stationed there. Having some troops stationed in a country certainly doesn’t mean sending more troops into it to take over is not an invasion.
I could, but to be blunt, I don’t care to. I discussed this issue time and time again only to have you ignore it. You never once asked me for evidence for my claims like this. Now, after you ended any exchange between us and while I’m talking to someone else, you jump in to ask for evidence? No thanks. Especially not when you’ve chosen to let stand false claims where you not only denied I said things I clearly said, but even claimed I said things I never said.
Until you try addressing any of the many falsehoods you’ve posted during the discussions of this topic so far, I see no reason I should put work into providing you sources to try to correct your willful ignorance of basic facts. The discussion of this topic suggests you’ll just ignore anything I say which you find inconvenient and/or falsely claim I never said it in the first place (and perhaps even claim I said the opposite).
Crimea had a majority of ethnic Russians since 1926; Ukrainians were at max. 1/3 of the number of Russians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea
It was never part of Ukraine till 1991.
Brandon, seek help
Brandon is getting the frustrating feeling that he is in a “Who’s on first?” Abbott and Costello skit. (You youngsters look for it on youtube.) On this rare occasion, I can empathize with the high strung little fella.
Antony, wrong.
Mostly correct except for overseeing Khrushchev’s “personal gesture” gifting Crimea to his dear Ukraine in early 1954 marking the 300th anniversary of Ukraine becoming a part of the Tsardom of Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea#Allegations_about_.22personal_gesture.22
It looks like you are trying to justify Stalinist KGB Putin’s actions, so you are still wrong. Crimea was part of Ukraine. You said yourself it was given to them. Estonia and a lot of other countries recently belonged to the Soviet Union/Russia. They didn’t buy it or win it, they were given their freedom. They have sizable Russian populations/5th columnists. Stalinist KGB Putin should at least be entitled to take back the regions, cities, towns, villages, neighborhoods, apartment blocks with majority ethnic Russian populations. Let’s be fair and consistent.
Hi Don, when a population group reaches over 50% they become the “first” column, so not fifth. 65,3% Russians in Crimea in 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Birth_rate.2C_Death_rate_and_Total_fertility_rate
Read harder. I never said the ethnic Russian majority in Crimea were a 5th column. Whatever column you want to call them, most of them were citizens of Ukraine. Now they are captives of Stalinist KGB thug Putin.
Crimeans voted 72% for Yanukovitch in 2010.
Three years later their president was overthrown by a small army of thugs sporting the wolfangle of the Waffen SS.
I have no doubt that they feel grateful for the decisiveness of Putin who saved them from those thugs.
Putin now has the neo-n*zi usurper/bigots in a jam. They must settle if they are to be admitted to NATO. Putin does not want them in NATO of course. He is in position to veto their application by a protracted stalemate in the Donbass.
Crimea’s capital Sebastopol is next to the ruins of ancient Chersonesus. During the Rus-Byzantine war (1043) the famous copper gates from the no.1 Crimean church ended up in Novgorod (“Russia”). The city was later totally destroyed by the Huns in 1299.
Prime minister Hariri of Lebanon has just resigned, citing his fear of assassination by Hezbollah/Iran. He has denounced Iran and Hezbollah and their interference in Lebanon. He declares that Iran will have its hands cut off. Something is in the works.
It is not clear to me that Ukraine is better off entangled with EU than Russia.
You should let the Ukrainians know that they might be better off under Putin’s KGB paws, mike. I am sure he would accept their surrender. And they would be re-united with the large part of their country that Putin has already seized. If they had considered this before they had their uprising, a lot of grief would have been avoided and many lives saved. But then you probably don’t have the history of suffering under Russian oppression and domination as do the Ukrainians.
No I don’t. That was the Soviet Union which no longer exists, but the EU seems to be moving in that direction.
You need to get up to speed. Stalanist KGB bred Putin is trying to resurrect the Soviet Empire. The crisis in Ukraine was precipitated by Putin. The majority of Ukraine citizens wanted integration with the EU. That is their business. Yanukovych ran on that platform and was elected President in 2010. He made the agreement with EU, but Putin jerked his chain and stopped him from signing it. The Ukrainian people are tired of Russia, from the beginning of time, keeping them on a leash and kicking them around. You are an uninformed casual kibitzer.
Of course, if you don’t know the difference between a KGB Putin run Russia and the EU, then your lack of clarity on this issue is understandable. What you are missing is that Ukraine could have perfectly normal relations with both the EU and Russia, if Russia was a modern, sovereignty respecting, law abiding democracy. Dictator KGB Putin would not let the people go. Do a little research and you will discover what measures Putin was taking to stop Ukraine from drifting out of the KGB-Putin-Russia orbit.
Yes, he’s trying to resurrect the Soviet Empire and expand the Russian sphere of influence. He is a dictator who has political opponents killed and came to power by bombing some apartment buildings making it look like a terrorist attack. Since then everyone who tries to discuss it ends up dead.
If you are in the EU, you are likely to end up with Muslim terrorism, and in jail for speaking negatively about Islam or other issues that the ruling class does not like.
MikeN, Steve, mpainter:
Your may learn something about Putin and Russia from the recent testimony of Bill Browder. He talks about Russian influence on both HRC and DT. Of course, his testimony may not be correct for a variety of reasons, However, knowing how Putin has killed his enemies, I can’t see why he would put his life at risk if he didn’t deeply believe what he is saying.
His opening statement beginning at 7:45 and the relationship between Putin and his oligarchs at 41:30-45:00 are particularly interesting.
it’s my understanding that there’s a plausible documentary (the one promoted by Veselnitskaya) which argues that Browder is a crook. Hard to tell in such murky waters. One of my brothers is acting in litigation against a Russian oligarch BTW.
Steve wrote: it’s my understanding that there’s a plausible documentary (the one promoted by Veselnitskaya) which argues that Browder is a crook. Hard to tell in such murky waters.”
Browder may be deranged by his experiences with the Putin government and therefore unreliable. Having someone you employed to defend you be tortured to death might unhinge anyone. However, Browder can’t possibly be a simple crook: No simple crook would risk his life publicizing the crimes of one of the most dangerous regimes in the world, led by a man who hasn’t hesitated to assassinate prominent opponents in such a way that others will know that Putin ordered the killing.
I would think that your personal experiences with the Hockey Team would lead you to recognize that when enemies are going to extraordinary lengths to discredit someone (a documentary, for example), there is likely to be some important truth involved. (They don’t pay much attention WUWT or others.) As it turns out, I was casually researching a new subject about a decade ago and having my intelligence insulted by review of AIT at RC (there wasn’t anything seriously wrong with implying that correlation between CO2 and temperature in ice-cores demonstrates causation), when they threw in a few insults about someone I had never heard of named McIntyre. And I didn’t believe what I read here either, until I had done a few months of occasional cross-checking.
You might listen to Browder’s testimony. He’ll tell you that some of his stolen tax payments ended up in a company that paid Bill C half a million for a speech AND that Veselnitskaya met with the the DT campaign to discuss the Magnitsky Act. But he will decline to speculate on what she offered in return, because he has no knowledge about that subject.
Touche. However, I’m not prepared to have an opinion on Browder affair without researching it. I’d like to see the documentary expressing the opposite point of view. Just because someone is passionate about a topic doesn’t mean that they are right; nor does it mean that they are wrong. Nor am I sanguine about Russian oligarchs. My younger brother is battling one of the richest ones in a Canadian litigation class action.
Opposing take on Magnitsky https://consortiumnews.com/2017/08/02/a-blacklisted-film-and-the-new-cold-war/
@jimmyllama very anti-Browder
Frank, thank you for posting the Browder testimony. It is very compelling. Steve, if you ever find equally convincing evidence of nefarious purpose to Browder’s life-risking commitment to expose Putin and oligarchs please share.
Sen. Graham makes most interesting point that Fusion GPS worked hand-in-hand with Natalia V to prevent the Magnitsky Act. She is clear Putin agent. She then approaches Trump Jr. with honey pot of Clinton emails. At the exact same time Fusion GPS hires Orbis and supplies Steele dossier to Trump opponents.
If Browder is correct the most important immediate Putin goal is repeal or weakening of Magnitsy Act then Natalia V can’t succeed without access to promised Clinton emails for trade, assuming Trump would make such a deal. There is only one meeting and Putin has to know that there would be no deal and no followup meetings.
What was the purpose of Natalia’s approach? Putin today is in much worse shape than he would have been if he did nothing. The Magnitsky Act and more are practically in stone. But it’s hard to see how it could have gone any other way. The only thing I can think is that Putin has the Clinton server compromising emails and toyed with the idea of offering them to Trump but there was no way Trump could/would make that deal. If Clinton were elected he would use it as Kompromat.
There is no way that Trump Jr. made a deal on June 9 with Natalia where Julian Assange could turn around on June 12 to announce possession of the Clinton emails. And there would be no purpose of G2.
Manafort is going down big-time. This will play on CNN for the next month. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/manafort-had-60m-relationship-russian-oligarch-n810541
Hey, Ron. It’s NBC. million$ “entities linked to Manafort” blah blah blah
I doubt they will prosecute Manafort for anything other than some possible financial shenanigans having nothing to do with Trump.
Steve wrote: “However, I’m not prepared to have an opinion on Browder affair without researching it. I’d like to see the documentary expressing the opposite point of view. Just because someone is passionate about a topic doesn’t mean that they are right; nor does it mean that they are wrong.”
I agree with this entirely (but not your earlier suggestion he could be a crook). Like you, I haven’t done my homework. I simply found one side (Browder’s side) of the story reasonably persuasive for a variety of reasons. He provided the first rational explanation for why three people close to Trump were meeting with Veselnitskaya and a former KGB agent.
Ron: “There is no way that Trump Jr. made a deal on June 9 with Natalia where Julian Assange could turn around on June 12 to announce possession of the Clinton emails.”
Browder refused to endorse the supposition that the Clinton emails were offered at the meeting. He said he had no personal knowledge of what may have been offered, but that in his experience Russian intelligence would have carefully studied their target and made an attractive offer. It wouldn’t be a momentary whim or rogue action taken at a low level.
One of the curious things about this is that Velnitskaya was refused entry into the U.S. by the DoS but was allowed in by Loretta Lynch under her special powers.
Bill Browder was sued for racketeering in 1998, which suit he settled out of court with the terms undisclosed. Then he formally renounced his U.S. citizenship and delved into the murky, reeking world of investment in Russia. Watch out for this guy.
Pretty amazing that today a documentary can effectively be completely censored through UK-US law & big money. The land of the free(for all)?
Steve, I don’t believe that the Saudi government supports terrorism of any kind. Probably members of Al Saud support various Islamic militants who might be characterized as terrorist groups, but I seriously doubt that the Saudi government does (Al Saud numbers in the thousands). Of course, the government supports fundamentalist Islam and so their position might be by a smear be represented as militant, but I do not believe that they support terrorism. Indeed, official Saudi support of Yassir Arafat ended with the Iraq invasion of Kuwait.
On the other hand, this is not to say that Saudi Arabia is not a fount of Islamic militancy. It is, and I believe that the U.S. should crack down on that and apply appropriate pressure on the government.
However, the picture has become complicated because the Saudi Arabian government now tacitly supports Israel in their position against Iran and Hezbollah.
Trump’s main objective in the mideast is to neutralize Iran and render that nation incapable of destabilizing the region. The IRG is the foremost exponent of Iranian militancy.
I hear the words, but remain baffled. Iran didn’t destabilize Syria – it helped to stabilize it. Same with Iraq. I understand that Iran rhetoric on Israel is threatening, but it doesn’t seem right to blame the situation in other Middle East countries on Iran.
You are right, Steve. The Iranians are lambs. We just like to mess with them.
Steve, please release my comment on the TV5 post from moderation.
Steve: sorry, lost track of it. Released a bunch of comments in moderation
Steve writes: “I hear the words, but remain baffled. Iran didn’t destabilize Syria – it helped to stabilize it. Same with Iraq. I understand that Iran rhetoric on Israel is threatening, but it doesn’t seem right to blame the situation in other Middle East countries on Iran.”
You are correct that Iranian forces and their allies are currently doing much of the fighting against ISIS and Al Nusra Is that producing stability in Syria or Iraq?
If there had been a relatively quick political resolution to the popular rebellion against Assad’s government, ISIS and Al Qaeda wouldn’t have gained control of so much Syrian territory and oil wealth. Iran’s support for its Shia ally enabled Assad to survive long enough for a relatively non-sectarian urban revolt to become a radicalized Sunni-Shia confrontation.
In Iraq, Iranian opposition to a new SOFA that would allow US forces to remain set the stage for the comeback of Al Qaeda in Iraq as ISIS. Their support for Shia militias and Maliki’s extremely sectarian second term alienated the Sunnis and Kurds and directly lead to the fall of Mosul.
Only the most ruthless dictators will be able to govern Iraq and Syria as without a multi-ethic coalition. Iran isn’t supporting such coalitions in either country.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is now mostly and Iranian-Israeli conflict via Hamas and Hezbollah. Saudi Arabia has joined Egypt and Jordan in supporting peace. The 10,000 rockets surrounding Israel come from Iran.
The whole Middle East has been destabilized by numerous Sunni-Shia conflicts that were unimportant before the Iranian Revolution. Iran are a religious theocracy with a religious military arm independent from the formal state (Revolutionary Guards). If the Green Movement protests after the stolen? election in 2009 had reformed the theocracy, the Middle East might be a very different place today.
Obviously much of the above is oversimplified.
Weird isn’t it: Persian Shia support for Arab Sunni (Shafi’i)Palestinians. What is in it for the Ayatollahs, I don’t get it.
Frank, correct.
Antony, turmoil in the region and an amalgam of their Hezbollah with Hamas,a very worthwhile objective for the ayatollahs. This is why Saudi Arabia has nearly abandoned the Palestinians.
AntonyIndia wrote: “Weird isn’t it: Persian Shia support for Arab Sunni (Shafi’i)Palestinians. What is in it for the Ayatollahs, I don’t get it.”
Well, there aren’t a significant number of Palestinian Sunni’s to support. If you believe in Jihad against the Jewish usurpers, who are going to support? Fatah was initial secular and left-wing before Islamism became popular. The PLO sold out to the Israelis in Oslo. The fundamentalist alternative was Hamas.
Second try:
AntonyIndia wrote: “Weird isn’t it: Persian Shia support for Arab Sunni (Shafi’i)Palestinians. What is in it for the Ayatollahs, I don’t get it.”
Well, there aren’t a significant number of Palestinian SHIA to support. If you believe in Jihad against the Jewish usurpers, who are going to support? The PLO was secular and left-wing before Islamism became popular. The PLO “sold out” to the Israelis in Oslo. The fundamentalist alternative Iran chose to support was Hamas.
Steve, there can be no doubt of Iran’s ambitions in that area, which they seek to fulfill by destabilizing it. The IGR is the prime exponent of this militancy and the means by which the militants maintain their grasp on Iran. If you overthrow the IRG, you have taken a big step toward undermining the militant theocracy of that country. That is a worthwhile objective, imo.
Regarding Obama’s unspeakably inept blunders in Syria,
this was spawned by the same object of limiting Iranian influence in the region, Assad being allied with Iran for many years. I think Trump imagines to wean Syria away from Iran and make it a dependent of Russia, hence Trump’s goal of rapprochement with Russia. Hezbollah will have to go. Will Trump succeed?Maybe. I think that he could.
Possibly, Putin’s intervention in Syria was a riposte against the U.S. for the Maidan and subsequent friendliness. If so, it succeeded quite well.
Trump says that replacement of Assad is no longer a U.S. priority, but Assad’s troubles are not over yet. He will have to abandon his Iran connection if he wishes to maintain himself. Trump is trying to encourage this by showing determination to undo Iranian militancy by whatever means are needed. Israel is ready to cooperate in Trump’s scheme.
Subsequent _un_friendliness I meant
from my reading of the area, I think that US is far too prone to interpret events as nothing more than Great Power machinations. At the time of Russian intervention, ISIS was advancing on Damascus, which looked like it was about to fall. Russia has had to deal with Islamist insurgency within its borders and decided that ISIS in control of Syria would be devastating for Syrian people (who had been allied with Russia for years) and would increase insurgency problems within Russia and therefore intervened, despite warnings and taunts from Obama that it would be a “quagmire”.
It is difficult for me to imagine that Putin would have intervened without considering all aspects of the situation. He certainly knew that he was supporting an important client of Iran. He knew that Israel would be an interested party (in fact, he made every effort to stay on good terms with Israel). He knew that Obama wanted Assad out. Often a state can best make a point by being troublesome. And there were collateral considerations, as you point out.
Painter has got to differ with Steve on this Iranian issue to stay aligned with Trump. What painter doesn’t know is that Trump certainly does’nt think that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine.
In a July 2016 interview, Trump stated that he would consider recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and lifting sanctions on Russia that were imposed after Russia began aiding self-proclaimed separatist republics in eastern Ukraine seeking to undermine the new, pro-Western Ukrainian government.[230] He added that Russia could help the United States in fighting the ISIS terror organization.[231] In another July 2016 interview he added to this “You know the people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were, and you have to look at that also.”[232] Former NSA director and CIA director Michael Hayden denounced Trump’s comments as “devoid of facts and divorced from traditional American, traditionally European policy.”[233]
The above excerpt from a Wikipedia article on Trump’s campaign positions.
Yeah, and Trump since actually becoming President has recognized the right of KGB Putin to annex Crimea and seize Eastern Ukraine. And he has lifted the sanctions and yatta yatta yatta. That was one of the dumbest things Trump has ever uttered. Appallingly dumb. He knows better now. It was also a very dumb unforced error for him to joke about the Russians providing that hag Hillary’s missing emails. He has had Russia Russia Russia hung around his neck for some time now, somewhat due to his in-artful ruminations on Putin and his shenanigans. And you will never understand what I am talking about. Carry on.
The Donbass insurgency began in March, on the heels of the coup in Kiev. Independence was declared and insurgents immediately started hostilities against the usurper. The insurgents succeeded in holding their own against the usurper for several months but lost ground in July,2014. In August Putin sent in an estimated 10,000 Russian troops which restored the battlefront. Then a ceasefire was agreed to which lasted a few months. There have been four more ceasefire declared since then. The last was in August. It lasted about two minutes.
There has been a stalemate for over two years with only minor skirmishing. The Ukraine has made no real effort during this period to overcome the insurgents. They appeared resigned to losing the Donbass. I wonder what they now think of Obama, Biden, and Nuland-Pyatt now.
You don’t know what usurper means. And you have a nasty habit of making up your own facts, or relying on KGB Putin propaganda.
“The Ukraine has made no real effort during this period to overcome the insurgents.” A particularly bizarre claim. Let’s pretend it’s true. Would the Russian occupation and Russia’s overwhelming miltary advantage have anything to do with the lack of Ukrainian progress in defeating the usurpers in Donbass? Try to use you coconut.
It’s got everything to do with it, that’s my point. Which went by you, it seems. Try reading it again, this time thoughtfully.
That is BS.
“I wonder what they now think of Obama, Biden, and Nuland-Pyatt now.”
You didn’t mention, nor did you in any way allude to the Russian’s invasion and their overwhelming military superiority. You want to blame the whole mess on Obama, because you are an Obama hater and you will twist anything any which way to score points against that fool. I bet I hate Obama more than you do, because I am a lot smarter than you are and way more knowledgeable about the terrible damage that MF’er has done to the United States and the world. But I am not going make up crap to pin on him. It is not necessary and it is self-defeating.
Here’s a lengthy and thoughtful post taking Iran’s side, while acknowledging 1980s terrorism:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/10/donald-trump-kowtows-to-israel-on-iran-part-ii-by-publius-tacitus.html
Don’t you get the meaning of “number one state sponsor of terrorism”? It doesn’t mean the only sponsor of terrorism. Can you name another “number one state sponsor” of terrorism”?
“The Saudi Foreign Minister conveniently ignored the fact that 15 of the 19 terrorists who hijacked planes and attacked America on 11 September 2001 were Saudis not Iranians.”
This is a very faulty argument. Unless there is some convincing evidence that the Saudi Government sponsored 9-11.
Iran gives huge amounts of military and financial support to Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc. etc. Just about any Shiite terror committed in the world has fingerprints on it. It is not surprising that you found an opinion from some clown who says the Iranians aren’t so bad. Is it just that you prefer not to believe anything that the U.S. government says?
Steve, “thoughtful”? Did you actually read your link?
I read the post you linked. It makes a credible case that Hezbollah hasn’t been officially linked to many terrorist incidents in the past 5-10 years and that AL Qaeda and ISIS have become vastly more important. Probably true. Iran still sponsors Hamas and other Palestinian groups. All of these groups are training terrorists. Aren’t their rockets a form of terror attack? Those promoted a brief war in Gaza about a decade ago, and then a quieter period. Since then Hezbollah has been busy in Syria. Is their any reason to believe that they have renounced terrorism as a tactic and now will restrict their targets to military ones? I don’t think so.
The author claims Hezbollah attacked a busload of Israeli tourists in Bulgaria. That is terrorism. It was allegedly done in response to attacks on Iranians working on nuclear weapons. It that terrorism? Are those working for the military but not in uniform legitimate targets/
While I agree that blunders were “unspeakably inept”, I think that they were in line with policy in Libya (near contemporary and similar) where Iran influence not an issue. In both cases, I think that US policy was too focused on eliminating individuals (Qaddafi, Assad) and destabilized by meddling.
Right, it appears that Obama regarded Qadaffi and Assad both as eyesores.
Since his Syria fiasco was all unacknowledged sneakiness there is no public record of Obama’s justification in Syria. But, there can be no doubt that, from a strategic point of view, the biggest objection to Assad was that he was the client of Iran and supported terrorism, Hezbollah, and generally made himself a nuisance. Thus he was an eyesore.
Right, we had no business interfering with Qadaffi and Assad slaughtering folks engaged in illegal popular uprisings against brutal dictators. What were we thinking?
I don’t think Obama cared about limiting Iranian influence in the region.
He should have backed down once he realized Putin wanted it more.
“Trump’s main objective in the mideast is to neutralize Iran and render that nation incapable of destabilizing the region.”
I would worry more about Iran’s neighbour Pakistan which has more than double the population, is part of the huge Sunni Ummah, has over 100 nuclear weapons, ICBMs, an army way stronger than Saddam ever had, plus a wide collection of locally condoned terrorist outfits some of which are gearing up to get themselves officially elected. The potential harvest of suicide jihadis is also much bigger there. Now it is falling into Chinese Xi’s orbit on top of it, unlike Iran.
Worrying about Pakistan is entirely justified. However, there is a sizable part of the government and military that is at least skittishly on our side that does not want Pakistan to go all jihadi. And we have significant influence there, not unconnected to the billion$ we give them. There are recent signs that Trumps pressure on them to show us some respect is having modest results.
Here is the only modest success: 2 stupid Canadians rescued http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-afghanistan-hostages-freed-20171013-story.html
actually, it was a stupid Canadian and a stupid American. (Canadian husband, American wife). Deeper in the story, it mentions that his first wife was Zaynab Khadr, a member of the notorious Al Qaeda family, the Khadr’s. Her brother Omar Khadr is very controversial in Canada – I’ve tweeted about it.
You will find out about the other modest successes, eventually. If you pay attention.
Today: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/pakistan-withdraws-terror-charges-against-hafiz-saeed/article19868068.ece
Some of these comments are going to random locations. This is a repeat. We will see if it lands in the right place.
Headline is misleading. Fake news. That story hasn’t played out yet. He is still being held and charges will be filed.
Here is a story on how Trump’s had line is roiling internal Chinese politics:
https://policycn.com/17-10-13-debating-north-korea/
Trump is shaking things up. No pushover like the stooge we had for the last eight years.
Are all US presidents fooled by Pakistan? http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/donald-trump-us-pakistan-relations-taken-in-by-pakistans-deceitful-acts-terrorism-4892450/
Who are Joshua Boyle and Caitlin Coleman? (a Taliban Sleeper cell?) http://www.torontosun.com/2017/10/17/who-are-joshua-boyle-and-caitlin-coleman
“..slaughtering folks engaged in illegal popular uprisings..”
=== === =====
Like in the Donbass? 🙂
Provide some evidence that a brutal dictator was slaughtering folks engaged in a popular uprising in the Donbass?
Some commenters here imagine that,by uglifying Putin, they prettify the Maidan coup, by contrast. It doesn’t work that way.
For brutal usurper, see the Odessa massacre, linked above by Steve McIntyre. This massacre effectively quelled the anti-Maidan protests in Odessa (the Russian minority is put at 29% of the populace. This type of massacre was not repeated in the Donbass because the anti-Maidan protesters were better organized (and armed). The Russians of the Ukraine were well aware that the Maidan coup stripped their protection away.
Brutal dictator brutal usurper, what’s the difference?
That is not evidence and you forgot to mention that it’s all Obama’s fault. Just your usual goofy drivel.
Glad to see you two talking again.
Don, I am with you on every point. But I can sympathize with people confusing who are the good guys. I think in the post-Cold-War maturity we see that the US IC has done some questionable things in the name of the lesser of evils (even in Vietnam). The propaganda of equivalency is effective if one can twist the morality part around. However, it is kind of hard to see the morality behind the Shah of Iran Coup (1953). Toppling Mosaddegh in the name of anti-communism is harder to justify now. With the benefit of historical hindsight what the US IC thought was their greatest success really was the US’s lowest ebb. If Harry Truman ever found out before his death I’m sure he would have been appalled. To truly make America great again we need to swear off internal meddling completely, disband the CIA. Once that is achieved the (negligible) loss in intelligence will be replaced 10-fold by the admiration of the world at leadership toward a hopeful direction for humanity. Trust building is key to the survival of a WMD armed humanity. Terrorists need to be robbed of any argument of “freedom fighting.” Our youth an academics think climate change is the biggest threat. There is a large education gap.
What we see today is the real Iran. The Shah suppressed all the militant radical Muslims. Things would be infinitely better had the Shah not been overthrown. The Shah represented progress from the abyss of Islamic backwardness and that is why he was hated. The main opposition to the present theocracy are mostly Iranians who would reestablish the Pavhlavi regime, or something like it. The establishment of the Shah had a great stabilizing and beneficial effect on the region.
The mideast is not a place to implement unrealistic, high minded ideals. Try this, and you will make it even worse than now.
If we changed the UN Security Council permanent member veto from one vote to two I think the UN could be made useful as a mediator and supporter of oppressed peoples rights. A properly functioning UN is proper place for a world 911 call operation. The US and democracies could supply the force but the investigation and intervention needs to have an international flag. I don’t even think Israel would be attacked by UN so much if it no longer was just a popular political vote that was assumed would be vetoed by the US. It would help the solve the Middle-east problems if Israel was forced to gain another major supporter. I think France or UK would be good candidates. If the US get another Dem president they might need both of them.
mpainter: “The Shah suppressed all the militant radical Muslims”
Suppressing radicals only makes them more so, does it not? If anyone can be a world policeman than Russia gets to be one just as much as the US.
Suppressing the rabid biserkers keeps them from taking over. That’s how it works in the world. The Shah fell because oil prices declined and government revenues were halved. The government could not deal with the shortfall and this led to a slow unraveling of the regime as venders, suppliers, employees etc, could not be paid. The state became successively more radical with each government until finally Khomeini moved in and took over. That’s when it really went to hell. Thus today’s Iran. They hate us Ron because we are the foremost exponent of what they hate. They spew poison at Israel even though Israel has never injured them. They are the foremost expression of backward, malignant Islam.
The popularly elected government of the Ukraine was overthrown by a brutal insurrection which ousted the legitimate president and installed a usurper as president. The Donbass wanted no part of such a usurpation and declared independence and were thereupon attacked brutally. By the brutal usurper. The Crimeans, under the protection of Russia, escaped the brutal usurper. It’s all in Wikipedia, although it sometimes adopts discredited points of view.
Not evidence again. Merely assertions regurgitating KGB Putin propaganda. It’s all in wiki, except the words are different and any reporting of facts and events that doesn’t echo the KGB Putin propaganda narrative you assert are “discredited points of view”. Right, discredited by transparent KGB Putin propaganda.
If you are going to cite wiki as an authority, you don’t get to pick and choose which parts we are supposed to believe. That is incredibly dumb. And you don’t even provide an actual quote and a link. Just some BS that you made up. You are not serious. That is all the “discussion” I will have with you.
Trump agrees. He dislikes brutal usurpation.
Looks like Rex Tillerson is out.
Frank, others, Crimeans are better off out of the Ukraine and in Russia. Is it not obvious? That’s what they want but you disregard that. Their preference trumps all your arguments and gnashing of teeth. Save your enamel. Ditto the Donbass.
The usurpation backfired on the party of insurrection. They have lost the Crimea and their principle industrial region. They have made a shambles of their affairs. All that is left is their nationalistic bigotry. I cannot sympathize with them, myself.
mpainter: Frank, others, Crimeans are better off out of the Ukraine and in Russia. Is it not obvious? That’s what they want but you disregard that. Their preference trumps all your arguments and gnashing of teeth. Save your enamel. Ditto the Donbass.
No, it’s not obvious to me. The Crimeans voted in favor of leaving the USSR as an autonomous part of the Ukraine in 1992. In an open election with foreign observers. No one in their right mind should pay attention to the results of an election held by the military occupiers of a country on ten days notice. Given all of the fake news here in the US (some of which is propagated by Russian bots), what do you think the Crimeans knew about the events that had transpired in Kiev?
About 1/3 of Crimeans speak Ukrainian or are Crimean Tatars who were resettled to Siberia for 50 years by Stalin. Do you think they felt safe voting at a site guarded by Russian soldiers. The Crimean Parliament voted unanimously to rejoin the Russian.
No, all of these antics tell both of us nothing about what the Crimean people want and what they would choose in an honest referendum without external pressure. Given the increasing political polarization, it wouldn’t surprise me to see them vote to succeed. Yanukovych won about 70% of the vote in Crimea in 2010.
Finally, Putin will never allow a fair referendum with foreign observers to be conducted in the country – even if Trump requests it. They certainly won’t be able to muster the 97% majority and 87% turnout they claim took place in 2014 and their fraud will be exposed. Furthermore, voters were apparently only offered two choices: independence or union with Russia. The status quo was not even on the ballot.
mpainter: “The usurpation backfired on the party of insurrection. They have lost the Crimea and their principle industrial region. They have made a shambles of their affairs. All that is left is their nationalistic bigotry. I cannot sympathize with them, myself.”
The only usurpation occurred when Russian troops occupied the Crimea. There were three months of mostly peaceful protests in Kiev and elsewhere, an agreement to create a national unity government was signed, and one day of violence followed. The creation of a national unity government during a crisis is a common occurrence. President Vanukovych fled to Russia the next day and he still hasn’t provided a rational explanation for why he deserted his post during the crisis. Usurpers execute their opponents, or jail them, or publicly send them to exile.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/agreement-on-the-settlement-of-crisis-in-ukraine-full-text
Frank, you admit that another referendum would confirm the Crimean secession. That admitted, you still argue that the Crimea should not be joined to Russia. But your admission settles the issue; Crimea has chosen.
Frank, the overthrow of a popularly elected government by an organized coup is a usurpation in my dictionary. The leaders of this coup were the losers in the election. Usurpers.
Right, usurpers execute their opponents. But Yanukovitch was too fast for them.
I do not share your pro-Ukrainian sympathies.
Rather, your pro-usurper sympathies. We shall have to agree to disagree.
Rather, your pro-usurper sympathies. We shall have to agree to disagree.
Yanukowych DESERTED his post as president and fled to Russia. Both the police and army were still following his orders when he left. Official government buildings (like his office) had not been occupied. As best I can tell, his life was not in immediate danger.
His flight to Russia does seem to line up with the first publication of pictures of his mansion outside of Kiev. Perhaps he knew that his presidency was now doomed.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/24/rebels-toured-palace-ukraine-presidential-compound-viktor-yanukovych
Are you sure of this timeline? I haven’t parsed timeline by hour but one would need to check when Parliament building was occupied.
Frank, you have been reduced to repeating the party line. You yourself admitted that usurpers execute their opponents. Yanukovitch they would have murdered probably with his wife and family.
By the way, Yanukovitch purchased his estate in 2007, years before he was elected President (he was a wealthy businessman, like Trump). The pictures that you so happily link to were taken by the Maidan thugs who illegally invaded his estate, seeking to murder him.
Those who have any interest in this subject, I refer you to Wikipedia, which has a number of detailed and relevant articles: Euromaidan, Yanukovytch, others. These make it clear that it was an organized coup.
What a blunder; it gave Putin the supreme opportunity and he wasted no time.
mpainter: “By the way, Yanukovitch purchased his estate in 2007, years before he was elected President. Yanukowych was a wealthy businessman …. Those who have any interest in this subject, I refer you to Wikipedia, which has a number of detailed and relevant articles: Euromaidan, Yanukovytch, others.”
“Businessman”? Yanukovych was one of the successful oligarchs who made billions during the chaos that followed the break up of the USSR. His mansion/estate apparently formerly belong to the Communist Party and then the Ukrainian Government, but now appears to be owned by a series of European shell companies. The links below come from the references in Yanukovych’s Wikipedia page. (I don’t know how reliable these sources are, but you suggested them.)
https://web.archive.org/web/20120314151108/http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/66006/
https://www.globalwitness.org/en-gb/blog/anonymous-uk-company-owned-truncated/
Millions of dollars of similar loot funded Paul Manafort’s and others lobbying efforts on behalf of the Ukraine, which may become a part of his likely trial. I don’t know if they entangled Michael Flynn, but they appear to have tried.
Biilions more are going into funding other lobbying and propaganda operations like Veselnitskaya’s attempts to limit the impact of the Magnitsky Act, the bots that are spreading propaganda through social media and websites that are poisoning our minds – a job made easier by the degeneration of our MSM. Millions of dollars flowed also into the Clinton foundation and paid for Bill’s speeches. IMO, money is purchasing the image that Putin is something other than an ex-KGB thug who is now running the world’s biggest criminal organization and a serious threat to our national security (through NATO obligations).
Billions of dollars from similar activity throughout Russia and Eastern Europe have flowed into the West, including the Trump Organization (as DT Jr has told us). Although it is unlikely that Trump owns a piece of Mezhyhirya literally, he and the Clintons do so figuratively.
Unfortunately. Porshenko and others are likely as dirty as Yanukovych.
mpainter wrote: “The pictures that you so happily link to were taken by the Maidan thugs who illegally invaded his estate, seeking to murder him.”
Actually, the true owners of Mezhyhirya – the citizens of Ukraine – have reclaimed their property (from its usurper). If Yanukovych had been present, he would have been protected by state security – 300 police allegedly came when he was in residence during peaceful times. Perhaps he knew that their loyalty was waning.
This is why – IMO – the citizens of Crimea would be better off as part of Ukraine than of Russia. Citizens of Ukraine (often peoples of all ages with families) twice have staged mostly peacefully protested for three months in winter in the Euromaidan and changed government policies. We witnessed similar things in Tahrir Square and Aleppo. Except for a brief period, the people of Russia haven’t shown such spirit. Such upheavals are dangerous and usually don’t have a happy ending, which is why the US/EU attempt to negotiate a compromise was the right policy and its failure a tragedy. The BBC story below suggests to me that Putin had been contemplating a takeover of Crimea for several months, probably since continuing protests against Yanukovych created doubt that his administration would survive. Russia was invited and attended the negotiations, but refused to endorse the compromise. Perhaps Putin didn’t want a peaceful end to the crisis.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31796226
mpainter: “Yanukowych was a wealthy businessman, like Trump.”
That’s what I’m afraid of – Trump being like Yanukovych. Fortunately, Trump inherited a great deal of wealth, was never a Communist Party apparatchik, nor the hand-picked successor of the Communist Party Leader running the Ukraine when the USSR fell apart. Trump lives in a country where the rule of law functions – at least to some extent: Where Comey refused to pledge his loyalty to Trump and end the investigation of Flynn. Where dAG Rosenstein appointed a special prosecutor after Trump fires Comey. Where Trump businesses have gone bankrupt and been sued hundreds of times in court. Where the DoS IG files a complaint with the DoJ about Hillary Clinton’s email server that torpedoes her quest for the presidency (partly thanks to Comey’s candid testimony to Congress), but doesn’t land her in court.
Your admiration for the authoritarianism of Putin and Yanukovych (and DT’s authoritarian impulses) appears incomprehensible to me
I agree that “wealthy businessman” is far from an accurate description of someone who acquired wealth by appropriation of state assets for virtually nothing. I vaguely recall that oligarchs acquired assets under policies recommended by US consultants on privatization of state assets and that this was a fait accompli by Putin’s time, with Putin pushing back against oligarchs. But I haven’t read any literature on topic. Useful references?
On February 21, 2014, Yanukovitch left for Karkov. On February 22, the Ukrainian parliament voted to declare him deposed “for deserting his post”, this act wholly unconstitutional. Then they proceeded to unconstitutionally remove five judges from the Ukrainian Constitutional Court. Next they passed a criminal indictment of Yanukovitch, also unconstitutional, in effect a bill of attainder.
And what did they have to enforce these unconstitutional acts? A band of neo-n*zi thugs. Not too hard to figure out what happens when the electorate elects a president who lacks a small army of street fighters.
He vaguely recall: Putin pushing back against oligarchs, that is a howl. He pushed them into sharing the spoils and being accomplices with him in his massive kleptocracy. He and his cronies are the biggest mob of oligarchs in World history. Do you seriously believe U.S. consultants have any responsibility for that crap? Privatization doesn’t necessarily have to be corrupt. Nobody needs to teach Russians how to steal. Sheesh.
Frank wrote: “Official government buildings (like his office) had not been occupied. As best I can tell, his life was not in immediate danger.
Steve asked: “Are you sure of this timeline? I haven’t parsed timeline by hour but one would need to check when Parliament building was occupied.
I’m less certain now. The video below says the police had disappeared on February 22, leaving protesters in control, but no violence that day. There is similar news report from RT, and several videos of the vote itself. A resignation letter is mentioned but later denied.
I see that an ebook exists, but I suspect reporters from an english language Kiev paper could be biased against Yanukovych.
“EuroMaidan wasn’t primarily about Russia versus the West; it was about two different visions of Ukraine. (As somebody said of the 2004 Orange Revolution: millionairs in Kyiv against billionaires in Donetsk)
Reducing it to a conflict between Great Powers – and thus robbing the protesters of their moral agency – is the real facile narrative here.”
my understanding is that neo-Nazis Parubiy and Yarosh obtained control of National Security apparatus after occupation of Parliament by Pravy Sektor and others. If so, Yanukovych could reasonably fear for life and flee to safety, without such action constituting a resignation. US quickly endorsed coup.
have you read about massacre in Odessa in May 2014 – neo-Nazis barricaded opposition in building and burned them alive. Some links in comment thread here http://www.economist.com/node/21601918/comments . Parubiy was in Odessa just before massacre, met with leader of massacre.
Feb 22, 2014 during coup http://www.dw.com/en/would-a-federal-ukraine-be-viable/a-17404541
interesting article on Feb 23, 2014 by Time on situation in Crimea http://time.com/9243/the-russian-stronghold-in-ukraine-preparing-to-fight-the-revolution/
Leaders in Crimea immediately observed that neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine presented opportunity to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia:
Organizer Yermakova observed that there was no need for Russia to “invade” since “they are already right here” [through military bases legally in Crimea]:
Here’s contemporary article linked from Wikipedia. Yanukovych had signed agreement with opposition on Feb 21 and gone to Kharkov where he was safe. Elections promised by end 2014.
It appears that insurgents seized government buildings overnight Feb 21-22. Early the next morning (7:30 am), neo-Nazi Parubiy and “the Maidan” “demanded that Yanukovich resign before 10 am today, otherwise the activists will go on armed assault”. https://www.segodnya.ua/politics/pnews/maydan-polnostyu-kontroliruet-kiev-parubiy-497737.html
The act of purging the Ukrainian Constitutional Court of five justices appears to be intended to hamstring that court before it could declare the acts of parliament null and void. Just how did parliament enforce its unconstitutional removal of these judges, I wonder? I feel sure that this coup succeeded because it had the para-military neo-n*zis as enforcers.
“Your admiration for the authoritarianism of Putin and Yanukovych (and DT’s authoritarian impulses) appears incomprehensible to me”
### ### ###
I do not admire Yanukovitch. I admire Putin for his guts and statecraft. Of course I admire Trump.
Putin has put himself on top. Obama blundered as did the Maidan coup leaders. Putin took immediate advantage of their blunder. I think he had a contingency plan. Very neat, quick and effective and now the Ukraine is in a well full of s___t.
And “authoritarian impulses”. Not willing to credit Trump with brains,are you, tsk tsk.
You know, it’s remarkable Steve McIntyre says:
For a variety of reasons, including using editorial rhetoric far beyond what the person he quoted said (which is remarkable given he quoted an extremely biased person). However, the the part which is most incredible is he actually prefaces his quote by saying it shows what “Leaders in Crimea” said. His quote is from “the head of the Russian Community of Sevastopol, a civil-society group in Crimea.”
In what world do we quote the views of the head of a non-government organization to depict what “Leaders in” any country say? Heck, just look at the name of the group this guy is the head of It’s the “Russian Community of Sevastopol.” I don’t know how many people it has, but I’m pretty sure the head of an organization intended for only one ethnic group in a single city is not a leader in Crimea.
At least, he isn’t in any meaningful sense. I could lead three people on a tour of my house, but that doesn’t mean I should be called a “leader in the United States.” I have a love for semantics, but come on. If this is the sort of thing you have to do to push a narrative where Russia didn’t invade Crimea and it was just the innocent victim of betrayals as the evil western empiralists broke their promises…
I feel like I’m back reading Real Climate with Gavin Schmidt appealing to his esteemed guru to obtain credibility for the nonsense he was writing.
I just noticed Steve McIntyre said:
This is rather fascinating as if one looks at how this “massacre” is reported across the spectrum, they will find few sources reporting what McIntyre portrays. McIntyre makes it sound as if a bunch of neo-Nazis rounded up people they disagreed with, locked them in a building and set the building on fire. Here is what most sources agree on:
On May 2nd, 2014, a pre-game rally of soccer (football) fans was held in a traditional celebration of unity. The rally consisted of approximately 1,500 people, including fans of both teams, regular citizens and some people McIntyre labels “neo-Nazis.” Mid-afternoon, this rally was attacked by several hundred pro-Russian activists. Fighting ensued throughout the city, utilizing various weaponry including firebombs and an AK-47 fired by a Pro-Russian activist, causing the first casualty.
As the fighting escalated and in response to the pro-Russian attack, pro-Ukrainians decided to attack a pro-Russia camp. This attack drove people from that camp into a nearby building (which was in use and had uninvolved people within it), occupying it and taking it over. Fighting between the two sides continued.
That much is pretty well accepted by all but fringe reporting. What happened next is much more muddled. There are differing reports about who had what guns, who threw Molotov cocktails from where and which started the fire which eventually killed 32 people. What is clear is however things played out in the details, this was the result of escalating violence between two groups throughout a city. It wasn’t a group of people rounding up innocent victims, locking them in a building and burning them alive. (As an aside to clarify a factual matter, nobody actually burned alive.)
Oh, and there’s no real factual disagreement about how it all started. While skirmishes between these two sides had happened before, the violence leading to this “massacre” began because several hundred pro-Russian activists attacked a peaceful rally being held to show unity before a sporting event.
Of course, there not being a factual disagreement won’t stop some people from coming up with entirely different narratives. Why let facts get in the way?
And now Steve McIntyre breathlessly rushes to <a href="https://climateaudit.org/2017/10/02/guccifer-2-from-january-to-may-2016/#comment-776583".share a tweet to portray Ukraine as being run by neo-N@zis because, “Ukraine honors nationalist leader blamed 4 pogroms.”
Of course, McIntyre can’t be bothered to mention anything about how the person in question, /Symon Petliura, is “blamed” for killing tens of thousands of Jews by some people but not others. The reason is history isn’t clear on how much responsibility Petliura actually had for what happened. Ukraine and Russia were at war in early 1900s, and Petliura took charge of Ukraine for about a year. During this time, Petliura’s position as leader was shaky, and he lost control of many of his troops.
Petliura did not order Jews be murdered. In fact, historians agree he sought to stop Jews from being vicitimzed many times. What historians disagree about is how much Petliura could have done to stop the murders that did happen. The main argument is Petliura tacitly allowed Jews to murdered in large numbers because he was afraid (more) troops would turn agains thim if he tried to stop the slaughters.
Russian propaganda like to over-simplify Petliura as a mass murderer, and McIntyre seems willing to help push that narrative. Hopefully the people seeing his comment care more about nuance, detail and fact than he seems to. Portraying a person as a monster who committed mass-murder when historians all agree he didn’t want that to happen, and in fact actively helped Jews in many ways and on many occasions, seems wrong.
What say you, Brandon, is the Waffen SS wolfsangle insignia a suitable emblem for the neo-n*zi Ukrainians? If not, please share your thoughts with us as to why not.
If yes, then no need to say anymore.
Brandon, you say “There are differing reports as to what happened..”
#### ### ####
Actually all reports agree that the victims were attacked while in their encampment and fled to the refuge of the building. This building was besieged by a superior force of Ukrainian street fighters (neo-n*zi thugs?) who pelted it with firebombs until the building caught fire.
Brandon, it’s true that there are conflicting reports as to the details but if one keeps in mind that the only victims were those who sought refuge in the building, and that none survived, then one has a means of sifting out the truth of the matter.
Brandon is a major pain in the buttocks, but he is meticulous and he brings facts. Some others here not so much.
Facts on the wolfsangle:
Translates as wolfhook.
Was the insignia of the Waffen SS
Has been adopted as the emblem of the neo-n*zi Ukrainians.
Is worn as an armband by the Maidan street fighters, as shown in photographs.
Frank says Yanukovitch is not a businessman but an oligarchy.
Definition of oligarch from i-net:
noun
1.
a ruler in an oligarchy.
2.
(especially in Russia) a very rich business leader with a great deal of political influence.
Hmmm. A very rich business leader with a great deal of political influence. Donald Trump?
And it is just tough sh!t for the sizable population of Crimea, who aren’t OK with the invasion and don’t want any part of being ruled by Stalinist KGB thug Putin. There will never be another free election in Crimea as long as Putin or a similar dictator is running the reconstituted Soviet empire.
The Southwestern U.S. used to belong to Mexico. A quick invasion of certain relatively undefended areas along the border, a referendum after a few hours of lining up folks of Mexican origin and Mexico gets back sizable chunks of lost territory. Who could complain about that?
Burp! Says Putin. Thanks for the meal.
NATO requires their applicants to have their affairs in good order, internally and in their foreign relations, particularly with their neighbors. Ukraine must settle with Russia or forget about NATO membership. The Maidan coup backfired in a very big way on the usurpers. Thanks to Obama. Putin holds all the high cards.
Frank, you have been reduced to repeating the party line. You yourself admitted that usurpers execute their opponents. Yanukovitch they would have murdered probably with his wife and family.
By the way, Yanukovitch purchased his estate in 2007, years before he was elected President (he was a wealthy businessman, like Trump). The pictures that you so happily link to were taken by the Maidan thugs who illegally invaded his estate, seeking to murder him.
Those who have any interest in this subject, I refer you to Wikipedia, which has a number of detailed and relevant articles: Euromaidan, Yanukovytch, others. These make it clear that it was an organized coup.
What a blunder; it gave Putin the supreme opportunity and he wasted no time.
On February 21, 2014, Yanukovitch left for Karkov. On February 22, the Ukrainian parliament voted to declare him deposed “for deserting his post”, this act wholly unconstitutional. Then they proceeded to remove five judges from the Ukrainian Constitutional Court. Next they passed a criminal indictment of Yanukovitch, also unconstitutional, in effect a bill of attained.
And what did they have to enforce these unconstitutional acts? A band of neo-n*zi thugs. Not too hard to figure out what happens when the electorate elects a president who lacks a small army of street fighters.
Hi Don, what do you think, is the Waffen SS wolfsangle insignia and appropriate symbol for the Maidan coup?
Nice work, Steve. You worked that neo-N*zi brand in there about a hunnert and foty times. Wow, what kind of flouncy a$$ neo-N*zis would fail to seize all the power once they had taken over the national security apparatus and the parliament? And then they voluntarily resigned from their powerful positions like good little lambs and took part in democratic elections. Whoever is in charge of neo-N*zis these days needs to get a hold of these neo-wusses and give them a tuneup. You are really trying too hard, Steve.
Brandon claims Steve is factually wrong but doesn’t post his own links to back that up….
Headline is misleading. Fake news. That story hasn’t played out yet. He is still being held and charges will be filed.
Here is a story on how Trump’s had line is roiling internal Chinese politics:
https://policycn.com/17-10-13-debating-north-korea/
Trump is shaking things up. No pushover like the stooge we had for the last eight years.
Saudi Arabia vs Iran is more due to inertia. Persia was somewhat Westernized and Iranians can pass for white Europeans pretty easily. Saudi princes and kings make nice with Western leaders while selling oil on demand, but funding Wahhabis around the world, while Iran chants Death to America and funds(founds?) Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran is fighting ISIS so they are not as much a villain as before.
Iran is also pursuing nukes, while declaring the world should be afraid if their program goes underground. Why should we be afraid of what they assure us is a peaceful energy program? One leader declared that he is OK with an Israeli destruction of Iran in a nuclear counterattack because most of the Muslim world would still be surviving while Israel was destroyed. Saudi Arabia is anti-Israel, with Trump’s trip being the first directly to Israel from the kingdom, but NATO leaders know this is mostly for show, and Saudi Arabia has shown no aggression towards Israel in a long time. Reportedly they have even given permission for Israeli overflight to attack Iran.
Shia majority countries Syria, Iraq look more likely to Westernize, along with Sunni Jordan. Sunni Turkey is becoming more Islamic, though if the Kurds stay in then the dynamic could flip in a few decades.
I suspect Iranians don’t have to worry about a counter attack. I am told by my friends in Israel who know, that Israel will not allow Iran to complete work on nuclear weapons. Period. Of course they could be bluffing. But these same friends have admitted to me that Israel deliberately attacked the U.S.S. Liberty. Why did they do it? Short answer is, they thought it a reasonable measure necessary for the defense of Israel. The Holocaust and all that. There is a certain kind of paranoia+rational fear that colors Israeli thinking. Iranian nuclear weapons equals existential threat in the hands of religious fanatics who have promised to destroy Israel. You do the math.
That is probably Israel’s plan, but I don’t see how they get there. Those mountains don’t look easy to get bombs through(perhaps they plan to just block the entrances?). There could be more areas that Iran has not revealed. Meanwhile they are building missiles, and improving the enrichment process. The deal itself is the cheating. They stop uranium enrichment while using other chemicals to reduce the time needed to enrich the uranium.
You are not doing the math, Mike. Put Israeli nuclear weapons and multiple means of delivering them into your equation.
You think Israel will engage in a preemptive nuclear strike?
That seems to be there intention, if Iran get’s too close to breakout. I would do it, if I were in the Israelis’ position. No way would I let Iran start building bombs that they could deliver by the missiles they are specifically developing to carry nuclear weapons, and that they could distribute by truck, ship, donkey, aircraft, camel to Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis etc. The World would squeal, but the Suadis and other countries threatened by a nuclear Iran would send flowers and kisses. All sorts of condemnation and sanctions would be heaped on the Israelis, but they would survive.
The Israelis have very good intelligence assets in Iran. Lot’s of Iranians hate the ayatollahs and others work for pay. My guess is that the Iranians, who know they are being carefully watched, will relentlessly keep pushing towards a nuclear weapons capability, but stop short of actually building devices. They might miscalculate on how far they can go before getting squashed. I don’t think the Isrealis will ever tolerate a significant risk that the Iranians will get off the first salvo.
Hamas and other Palestinians would be really happy with a N-bomb on Israel: NOT. It would kill a good number of them too make a part of “their” land uninhabitable for a few generations.
More plausible sources of a N-bomb on Israel (or USA): Pakistani irregulars steal or get one from their army friends or Kim Jong Un sells one to some loonies secretly.
Unlike Antony, I actually know what I am talking about. If Antony could read well, Antony would have noted that I said that if Iran had nukes “they could deliver” them to Hamas etc. Just the possibility that nukes might be in the hands of Hezbollah, Hamas etc. would be the most powerful deterrent to Israeli military power that those groups have ever had. And does tony really believe that exploding a nuclear device in Tel Aviv
is not the wet dream of plenty of Palestinian fanatics? The Israelis are not going to allow the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons for the reasons I have stated. Period.
Pakistan and North Korea are another story. The Israelis are aware of the possibility of the threat of loose nukes. They are smart and careful people. The Paks and the N Koreans also know that they are within range of Israel’s nuclear armed Jericho III ICBMs. And in a stretch, Dolphin class subs armed with nuclear cruise missiles. So, there is some incentive for the Paks and the NK idiots to keep their warheads under control. But maybe the Russians, French, or Chinese would sell somebody some nukes in a cash crunch. Or those pesky Martians. They always need money, for the earth girls. Can you think of any other far freaking fetched scenarios, tony?
We got a lot of geniuses in this discussion.
“We got a lot of geniuses in this discussion.”
I actually would not doubt this.
And, Don, we are trying to set a better example for the younger generation. 🙂
Any of you can beat Kim Yong Nam or Ijaz Shah?
Just age wise 😉
Steve wrote: “I agree that “wealthy businessman” is far from an accurate description of someone who acquired wealth by appropriation of state assets for virtually nothing. I vaguely recall that oligarchs acquired assets under policies recommended by US consultants on privatization of state assets and that this was a fait accompli by Putin’s time, with Putin pushing back against oligarchs. But I haven’t read any literature on topic. Useful references?
Jeffery Saches explains his role in advising Russia, the failure of privatization, and some scandals. It’s a place to start.
http://jeffsachs.org/2012/03/what-i-did-in-russia/
Correction: It’s a place to start, but from someone with a personal stake. Saches is at the center of many controversies, most recently the Millennial Village Project.
Steve wrote: “my understanding is that neo-Nazis Parubiy and Yarosh obtained control of National Security apparatus after occupation of Parliament by Pravy Sektor and others. If so, Yanukovych could reasonably fear for life and flee to safety, without such action constituting a resignation. US quickly endorsed coup.”
Thanks for raising my awareness on neo-Nazi influence on Ukrainian nationalism. It is difficult to separate Russian propaganda (any Ukrainian opposed to Russia must be inspired by Nazism) from the serious problems associated with some right wing groups. (I finally woke up when I read “state ownership of major businesses” – classic “national socialism” – but should have picked up other problems sooner.)
What I don’t understand is the motivations of the Euromaidan protestors. Obviously there were some neo-Nazi groups involved. I bought the ebook I linked above which is a collection of newspaper stories published by the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western group of investigative journalists. I provided a link above. They don’t appear to be tainted by excessive nationalism. They view the protesters as an alliance of citizens not controlled by any party or movement, and motivated to a desire to be part of Europe and free of corruption from both pro- and anti-Russian oligarchs. They discuss the weaknesses of the various factions among the protesters, but state that neo-Nazism is over-simplified Russian propaganda. For $3.99, I think it is worth reading. It takes less than an hour.
I think I understand the final hours of the Yanukovych government better. Opposition politicians brought the Compromise of Feb 21 to the EuroMaidan and it was rejected as described by the reuters link below. Is the key figure – Parasiuk – inspired by neo-Nazism? Or was any compromise with Yanukovych impossible after so many died? Parasiuk is from Lviv, the center of the neo-Nazi movement. He’s now in Parliament, but not a member of a right wing party.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-hero-insight/in-ukraine-turbulence-a-lad-from-lviv-becomes-the-toast-of-kiev-idUSBREA1O0JT20140225
In any case, when Parasiuk declared that Yanukovych would not remain president for the rest of the year and needed to be gone by 10:00 am tomorrow, that was the decisive moment. The leader of the army had just resigned rather than follow Yanukovych’s orders to move against the protestors. No police showed up in the EuroMaidan the next morning and Yanukovych had fled. 20,000 counter demonstrators were in Donetsk; rebellion in the east was inevitable. Russia was moving on Crimea. Areas dominated by Russian speakers wanted no part in a post-Yanukovych future. Humpty-dumpty won’t be put back together again no matter how illegal Russia’s seizure of Crimea might be to the West.
Was this the triumph of neo-Nazism? Do you have any evidence that points in this direction? How does one know one has brought the next Hitler (or Putin) into power? The Kyiv Post doesn’t think so, but that doesn’t mean they are right. They think the rebellion has been betrayed by the oligarchs that dominate and corrupt the new government. The right-wing parties lost ground in the elections.
there’s a lot of fog surrounding these events and hard to get the right nuance.
I think that there might be a difference in the situation immediately after the coup and three years on. I’ve tried to rely on contemporary videos and articles as much as possible in forming an opinion. My take – and it’s a “take” rather than fully parsed historical research – is that the Maidan started out as a broadly based protest, but that, by February, its vanguard was Pravy Sektor, Svoboda and other well organized extremist/neo-Nazi groups. Also, events in Kyiv were not representative of the entire country – easier to understand for a Canadian.
In the immediate post-coup government, members of Svoboda, Pravy Sektor and other far right parties had very important positions. One of the first acts of the post-coup parliament was to pass a
lawbill against use of Russian language. Russian-speaking minorities had every reason to be concerned. In a comparable Canadian situation, if Parliament passed a bill banning use of French language, Quebec would have organized a secession vote just as fast as Crimea.It looks like the subsequent government has toned down the neo-Nazi stuff. Andriy Parubiy, a leader of the present government, appears to have moved past his origins as a brownshirt, but the origins are real enough.
It seems to me that there is a very fundamental divide in Ukraine between people who fought against nazi-ism and people who fought against communism. The revival of Nazi-period insignia and the honoring of Nazi-period politicians (Bandera, Stetsko, Shukeyvych), through statues, parades, streets etc,, seems troubling to me. I realize that it isn’t the same thing as full-fledged Nazi-ism, but even so.
During the Cold War, I think that North Americans made a distinction between the Soviet Union government and Russians as people, recognizing that the people were oppressed by the government. The movie Dr Zhivago would be representative of this sentiment. Through hockey rivalry, Canadians have long made this distinction in a different field.
Once the Soviet government fell, subsequent rivalry seems to me more akin to 19th century Great Power rivalries, rather then 20th century ideological rivalry. No point in hating one’s rival.
Ukraine – and this is based on limited knowledge – strikes me as different. If you recall, in addition to anti-Semitism, original Nazi racism also regarded Russians as an inferior race. That carries forward into the platform and manifesto of the Socialist Nationalist Party of Ukraine (now Svoboda) and seemingly into the broader society. There’s far too much pure hate in Ukrainian ideology for my taste. I don’t think that that sort of hate should be endorsed or supported. I think that the US (and Canada) should stay a safe distance away from Ukraine.
I know this is probably pointless, but I think it’s funny Steve McIntyre says:
When that never happened. That law never got passed.
Here’s some context, because I actually care about facts and nuance. Throughout Ukraine’s history, the Ukrainian language was actively suppressed by Russia in many ways, in a series of efforts that took place over several centuries. This was viewed as a way to allow Russia more complete control over Ukraine. After Ukraine became independent in 1991, the official language for the country was Ukrainian.
In 2012, Ukraine passed a new law which said areas which had a significant population (10%) which spoke a different language could have that language declared an official regional language. Ukrainian was still the official language of the country, but some areas adopted Russian as a secondary language with official status.
After Viktor Yanukovich left Ukraine, members of the Ukrainian parliament responded to the anti-Russian sentiments of the time by voting to repeal the 2012 law to return the favor. The point was not to oppress Russian speakers in Ukraine, but to distance the country from Russian control via the same tactics it had used. This vote was held without any discussion or debate, with the proposal made and voted on in a single day. That didn’t go over well, both because of the lack of discussion and the fact a lot of people (including many pro-Ukrainians) viewed it as inappropriate because copying the unjust tactics Russia used against Ukraine meant using unjust tactics themselves.
Sharing that sentiment, the president of Ukraine refused to sign the bill parliament voted on to repeal the 2012 law. Because the president refused to sign it, the law never got passed. The system of checks and balances worked, with the rushed and incorrect decision the parliament made getting shut down by another branch of the government.
It is certainly appropriate to criticize the Ukraine parliament’s rushed action. One could even argue other actions taken since then showed the same desires. However, this was not “a law against use of Russian language.” It was a bill to repeal a law passed two years earlier which allowed minority languages to be declared official languages at regional levels. More importantly, the law never got passed because it was widely criticized within Ukraine, including within the Ukrainian government.
But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good narrative? McIntyre can keep making factually false claims, refuse to correct them and get away with it by saying, “N@zi! N@zi! N@zi!” I’m sure if he says it enough, readers will forget how he refuses to acknowledge minor facts like Russian military taking the Crimean government captive the day it voted to secede while taking the next two weeks to occupy large swaths of the region before Crimea “organized a secession vote” for the public. (Which wasn’t even a vote for secession, but again, who cares about details? Just yell N@zi!)
Brandon: You should be aware that Ukraine recently passed a law that high school will be taught in Ukrainian, even in regions where it is not the dominant language.
Few nations besides Switzerland have lasted a long time speaking more than one language. Canada nearly broke up over this issue and it could rise again. Czechoslavakia split. Catalonians (and the Basques) want to leave Spain. Language played a major role in the disintegration of the USSR. India is held together by the common language of their former rulers.
Frank, you are absolutely correct to observe the importance of language rights – an issue which, as a Canadian, I’m keenly aware of, using Quebec as an analogy in the comment to which Brandon takes exception. From a Canadian perspective, it spoke volumes that, despite the chaos of the day of the coup, the Ukrainian parliament took the time – on the very day that the coup was implemented – to pass a bill rescinding Russian language rights. As I observed, a corresponding action in Canada would be seen as an intense provocation by Quebec and, in my opinion, would precipitate a secession vote which would succeed. All disputes have long narratives and backstories and Brandon observes that this is the case in Ukraine/Russia. Obviously. But this doesn’t take away from my point.
Brandon acknowledges (indirectly) that post-coup Ukrainian parliament passed a bill against use of Russian language, but observes that the bill did not become law because it was not signed by the President. I’ve changed the wording to reflect this comment which is a useful in civics, but utterly irrelevant to the point that I was making about how Quebec would respond to the Canadian parliament passing a law/bill to outlaw use of French language. Whether the bill was signed into law would be utterly immaterial to the visceral response that would result in Quebec from such a bill.
I stand by the substantive point in this paragraph despite Brandon’s tirade and needless editorializing.
So wait, now our host is editing comments after the fact to change claims made in them? I can’t recall that having ever been done on this site before. I know I’ve seen formatting type stuff fixed, but… that’s not okay. How in the world are people supposed to have a fair discussion in a forum where one person can change whatever he says but nobody else can?
It’s not even worth pointing out McIntyre’s claims are completely bogus at this point. For instance, McIntyre added text to his comment comparing the bill in question to “a bill banning use of French language.” Deciding a language is not an official language of a country or region is not banning the use of that language. There are several hundred languages which are not the official language of Ukraine. People in Ukraine can still speak them.
And no, Quebec would not declare itself to have seceded with a parliamentary vote two days after a Canadian parliament voted to make French no longer an official language. Quebec would not have organized a vote to join another country two weeks after a Canadian parliament did that either. McIntyre’s claim is complete nonsense.
Crimea wouldn’t have done it either, except Russian military invaded and took over its government, holding its parliament hostage until it voted to secede from Ukraine. McIntyre still refuses to acknowledge that happened. How long until McIntyre starts calling commenters who point that out “N@zis”? Or is he going to just start editing their comments?
Brandon, you’re being entirely absurd. You pointed out a difference between a bill and a law. I acknowledged the distinction and amended the comment clearly marking the correction.
Frank:
I am. I am also aware of other laws passed which people say are intended to suppress the Russian language. That’s why I said, “One could even argue other actions taken since then showed the same desires.” If people want to have a discussion of such issues, that’s fine. I wouldn’t complain.
I’m not here to say Ukraine has done nothing wrong and is the image of perfection. My comments on the topic of Ukraine and Crimea have only been made to highlight the constant, flagrant misrepresentation Steve McIntyre has posted. That somebody else could possibly make a similar case without relying on a never-ending string of factual errors, delusions and slurs doesn’t make the numerous false and misleading claims McIntyre has made okay.
If people want to have a discussion of factual matters, I’m fine with that whatever the topic. If people want to have a discussion where they do little but spread Russian propaganda and figments of their imagination, well, I may speak up. If nothing else, McIntyre is giving great ammunition to Michael Mann and the rest of the Team. People who stumble across the hockey stick controversy and see what McIntyre has been saying on these issues would think he’s a hack and likely never trust anything he said about paleoclimatology.
I know I wouldn’t. If somebody linked me to Climate Audit for the first time today, I’d chalk McIntyre up as a nutcase and never look further.
And as I read Shollenberger’s posts now I think he has become almost totally unhinged. Brandon, wake up and read what is posted – or admit that you’re a f*****ng nutcase.
Brandon likes to call his input on Ukraine and Crimea “factual matters” but rarely comes up with links to support his claims.
This is understandable for Crimea as Ukrainians never crossed the 26% mark there while Russians touched 75% and were at 65% in 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Ethnicities_and_languages
An inconvenient Crimean truth.
ethnic composition is as follows: Russians: 1.49 million (65.3%), Ukrainians: 0.35 million (15.1%), Crimean Tatars: 0.28 million (12.0%).[14][20]
#### #####
From Wikipedia
Brandon is a nitpicker and a major pain in the a$$. However, he also does his homework and he is almost entirely correct on this one. Steve has been doggedly trying to smear the Ukrainian people with the neo-N*zi label. Apparently, the Stalinist KGB Putin invasion and seizing of Ukrainian territory was justified because an ethnic Russian President, who was elected years earlier by that same Russian hating neo-N*zi Ukrainian nation, was overthrown in a neo-N*zi coup. Oh, they want Ukrainian to be the official language of…watch this…Ukraine. Boo freaking hoo. The Russians have oppressed and slaughtered the Ukrainians since time began. I doubt that Steve watched this:
A lot of folks who survived the Holomodor were interviewed. Their complaints about genocide seem to be reasonable and I didn’t see any of them say anything that would cause a reasonable person to play the neo-N*zi card on them. Watch the video and you might get a little insight into why many Ukrainians embraced the invading real N*zis as liberators and fought alongside them. Many Ukrainians continue to celebrate those who fought with the real N*zis against the Soviets. They parade with the symbols of the Ukrainians who fought the Soviets. But the bottom line is, that Ukraine is a democracy with free and fair elections. Alleged neo-N*zis do not rule Ukraine. Period. That is just Stalinist KGB Putin propaganda to justify land grabbing. I am really surprised and disappointed that some of you people believe that crap and vigorously repeat it.
“But the bottom line is, that Ukraine is a democracy with free and fair elections.”
Says Don, except when there’s a coup and a usurpation, but that’s OK if you are a Ukrainian and your coup overthrew Russians. But not OK if you’re a Russian who turns the tables on the usurpers.
Another figure: Crimeans voted over 70% for Yanukovitch in 2010; compare this to demographics, above.
Don, you arguing that Russians deserve what they get because Stalin, Kaganovich, other Bolsheviks did evil in the Ukraine. In effect, you justify the ethnic divisions and hatred felt toward Russian-Ukrainians.
PS:
“Another figure: Crimeans voted over 70% for Yanukovitch in 2010; compare this to demographics, above.”
OMG! The hateful Russophobe neo-N*zi Ukrainian majority allowed the ethnic Russians to vote. And an ethnic Russian who could barely speak Ukrainian got elected President in 2010 on a platform of greater integration with the Western democracies and only got kicked out several years later, because he was bribed/coerced/threatened by Stalinist KGB dictator Putin forced go against his own campaign promises and his own foreign policy. You are hoisted on your own petard. Hurt much?
Right, Don, the popularly elected Yanukovitch was overthrown by those who hated democracy, elsewise they would have respected the decision at the polls.
EuroMaidan was a blow at democracy. In 2015, only one year later, would be another election and another vote. Why did they not wait one year? Because they would have lost again?
“But the bottom line is, that Ukraine is a democracy with free and fair elections.”
🙂
I know for sure what your lame excuse is for making up lame excuses for Stalinist KGB Putin’s land grabbing and shooting down civilian airliner. Not so sure about Steve. Seems to me that part of it is resentment over alleged U.S. involvement in an alleged coup to put alleged neo-N*zis in power. A lot of Canadians resent U.S super power status and alleged U.S. cultural imperialism. Canadian penis envy of their big swaggering Southern neighbor.
Anyway, my opinion of Steve has changed. I won’t be participating here. His take on climate issues could be interesting and credible, I thought. But the climate scare crap is moot, as long as The Donald is in charge. Trump rules! Mann drools.
Relax, Don, have another beer, grab some more pretzels, learn to laugh at yourself and you will enjoy life much more chuckle, chuckle, see?
This will make painter happy:
Steve will probably see the hand of a white supremacist neo-N*zi behind it.
Concerning the ban against the Russian language enacted by the Ukrainian parliament, this was one of a series of unconstitutional legislative diktats enacted by that assembly on February 22 and afterward during the Maidan coup. It seems irrelevant whether this particular diktat was “signed” into “law” since none of the diktats were “signed” into “law” in a constitutional sense, yet all of those diktats were enforced and acted upon, somehow.
Brandon’s quibble, in light of those circumstances, is of no consequence.
One unanswered question is how parliament achieved enforcement of its diktats.
Steve wrote: “There’s far too much pure hate in Ukrainian ideology for my taste. I don’t think that that sort of hate should be endorsed or supported.”
I would probably agree if you applied this to the ideology of certain Ukrainian groups. Applying it to Ukrainians in general is grossly unfair.
Steve wrote: “I think that the US (and Canada) should stay a safe distance away from Ukraine.’
Russia’s violation of existing treaties acknowledging borders and militarily annexing territory – without any attempt to negotiate – has made this impossible.
Otherwise, excellent comment.
Yeah, I wonder why there is so much focus on broad brush painting the Ukrainians as neo-N*zis, but Stalinist KGB dictator Putin get’s a pass. Oh, they Ukrops prefer that Ukrainians speak Ukrainian. That is horrible. It means they have animosity against the Russians, who have treated the Ukrainians badly and wiped them out by the millions in the not too distant past. And recently invaded their country and annexed a large part of it. And will take the rest, if it’s at all possible given the interest of most of the World in it not happening. But Putin is the hero. Pathetic.
Revolts against democracy are good for you says the Maidan lovers. Too much democracy is bad, they say. See how that nasty Yanukovitch got elected. Because of democracy.
The non-entity strikes, again. Yes, the Russians who worked for the Czars and the Russians who worked for Lenin and the Russians who worked for Stalin and the Russians who work for Stalinist KGB dictator Putin all just following orders. Rinse and repeat. But we would have done the same to the Canadians, if they had just given us an excuse. We keep hoping.
This blog has gone to the dogs. Nuff said.
I guess here we can all agree that Stalin was bad and so was his Holomodor.
Putin did nothing of that magnitude; sure he still uses his old KGB methods. All Russians are not Stalins. All DHS personal are not J. Edgar Hoovers.
You ought to be called non-entity antony. Everybody knows that all Russians are not Stalins. And everybody knows that the Russians with the power have been trying to run Ukraine to their liking, since the beginning of time. Ukrainians resist, they get squashed. Rinse and repeat. This really is not that hard to understand. Carry on.
“Russians, who have treated the Ukrainians badly and wiped them out by the millions in the not too distant past.” No, Stalin ordered this and any (Russian) refusing that was shot.
The Ukrainians are entitled to have their own culture like any mayor distinct group and if that can only be done by creating a separate state let it be. It does not change their geographical location – right next to Russia. It would be wise for any small new nation to keep friendly relations with a Big Brother: the US would equally not be pleased if Canada had applied to join the Warsaw pact in the past.
US didn’t exactly welcome missiles in Cuba
Hey Steve, didn’t Canada apply to join the Warsaw pact during the Cuban missile thing?
You all were scared sh!tless the crazy cowboys to the South would stand up to the Soviets’ foolish provocation and the missiles would fly. It didn’t turn out as you all feared it might. When you live under another country’s nuclear umbrella, you assume certain risks and responsibilities. A little loyalty would be nice too.
Loyalty: the Russians probably asked the same to the Ukrainians when they applied to NATO in early 2008.
I am sure non-entity has some bizarre reason why Ukraine might owe some loyalty to Russia. But it couldn’t be anything related to the two nations’ historical relationship of oppresser and slave. Must be something metaphysical and very perverse. But we thank non-entity for the joke.
Both are Slav(e)s, both can be called each others temporary oppressors, or simply rival brothers. 882–1240 Kievan Rus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27
Non-entity had to reach way back for that little piece of trivia. I guess he wants to call that payback for all subsequent Russian atrocities against their brother Ukrop Slavs. I don’t think that brief interlude is fresh in the memory of many Ukrainians. There are still some alive who experienced Holomodor. And a lot of folks who suffered Soviet domination. All but the little babies remember the bloody invasion and landgrabbing by Stalinist KGB dictator Putin.
Ukraine shares its language origins with Russian (and Belarus): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_East_Slavic#Literary_language_of_Kievan_Rus.27
EuroMaidan is not so difficult to understand if you consider the ethnic division in the Ukraine. Yanukovitch was the choice of the Russians and was elected President in 2005 but this result was overturned by the supreme court. He was elected again in 2010 and this result held. EuroMaidan was the the expression of an ethnic schism: Ukrainian speaking against the Russian speaking. The Ukrainians won because they were better organized, especially in the capital Kiev, and Yanukovitch did not have a firm grip of the police or the army. The Russian speaking portion of the Ukraine understood very well what had happened. They had been stripped of their president.
A house divided cannot stand. Thus the EuroMaidan pulled down the Russian half of their house. In fact, this was their motivation, to overthrow the electoral decision achieved by the Russian half of their nation.
mpainter: This was their motivation, to overthrow the electoral decision achieved by the Russian half of their nation.
Far too over-simplified. The protests began immediately after Yanukovych abandoned the trade agreement he had negotiated with the EU (not NATO). In the long run, membership in the EU would require a lot less corrupt government and greater individual rights. If you read the short book by the Kiev Post linked above, you’ll see that the opposition in the streets consisted of a wide variety of groups (not all nationalistic) united by a desire to orient Ukraine towards the West and better government.
“EuroMaidan wasn’t primarily about Russia vs the West; it was about two different visions of Ukraine… Reducing it to a conflict between Great Powers – and thus robbing the protestors of their moral agency – is the real facile narrative here.”
Even without interference from Russia, the revolution might have lead to the breakup of the Ukrainian state – two irreconcilable visions for the future. The tragedy is that Putin unilaterally violated international law and agreements Russia had signed with Ukraine. Military action to permanently ANNEX territory you have recognized belongs to another country is inexcusable in today’s world, especially without making any attempt to negotiate. Putin has “crossed the Rubicon” in a way he hasn’t done in Georgia.
Belarus may be the main reason Putin has done so. If Ukrainian-speaking Ukraine can chart its own path, then so can Belarussian-speaking Belarus. However, they certainly won’t go down that path when they see what has happened to Ukraine.
Frank: “Far over-simplified”
But it is that simple. The Russian offer had better terms than the EU offer. Yanukovitch did not “abandon” (emotive term that imputes fault) the EU “agreement” (there was no agreement in a formal sense), he accepted the Russian aid offer which presented greater economic benefits. Again, you impute ill motives to Yanukovitch, but he was obligated to accept the best offer.
Incomprehensible that you should dismiss the ethnic divisions in the EuroMaidan coup. The Ukrainian populace hated closer ties to RUSSIA.
Frank, your sermonizing on Putin “crossing the Rubicon” ignores the will of Crimeans, who voted overwhelmingly to join with Russia. They can’t be blamed and Putin can’t be blamed for extending his protection over them.
It is hardly imaginable that a populace would arise and overthrow its popularly elected President because he accepted a superior aid package. Yet that is what happened in the Ukraine. We must look for deeper reasons to explain the Maidan coup, other than “they wanted closer ties with the EU”. It is obvious that they hated Russia and Russians.
Elections were due in 2015. The Ukrainians could not wait a year to dismiss Yanukovitch at the polls. The Maidan coup was the work of anti-democratic forces. I do not agree with idea that the coup benefited the Ukraine. Nor do I agree that Putin bears all of the guilt in this affair.
The conclusion that Maidan coup supporters strive to avoid is that the coup irretrievably injured the Ukraine and justified the secession of the Crimea and the Donbass. They imagine that by castigating Yanukovitch all is put right.
And castigating Putin, of course. The more evident that it becomes that Maidan was disastrous for the Ukraine, the more the Maidan supporters blame Putin and Yanukovitch.
“membership in the EU would require a lot less corrupt government” says Frank.
#### ### ###
Should the U.S. joint the EU?
Then perhaps Joe Biden would not have stuck his son on the payroll of that Ukrainian company.
I agree that corruption is rampant in the Ukraine, as when parliament Timoshenko from prison and ABOLISHED the law under which she had been convicted.
Rather, Julia Tymoshenko, a prominent figure in Ukrainian politics who had been convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to seven years imprisonment and ordered to repay $188 million (!) to the State. Parliament ordered her release on February 23 and ABOLISHED the law under which she had been convicted of embezzlement. Presumably, she got to keep the $188 million. How sweet it is to be on the right side of a coup.
mpainter wrote: “Yanukovitch did not “abandon” (emotive term that imputes fault) the EU “agreement” (there was no agreement in a formal sense).”
The article linked below is from Spiegel on the day after Yanukovych announced turning down the EU agreement. It refers to a 900 page agreement with the EU that Yanukovych was expected to sign in Vilnius on November 29 (as well as a pipeline agreement to be signed on 11/22 that would allow natural gas from Western Europe to flow to Ukraine in event of a Russian cut-off). As we now know, the protests in the streets on 11/24 mentioned in this article were the first of the Euromaidan movement that would send Yanukovych into exile three months later.
“It appears Yanukovych has played his cards right one again…. That is, if he can contain the political anger within Ukraine.” He couldn’t.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/how-the-eu-lost-to-russia-in-negotiations-over-ukraine-trade-deal-a-935476.html
mpainter: “[Yanukovych] accepted the Russian aid offer which presented greater economic benefits. Again, you impute ill motives to Yanukovitch, but he was obligated to accept the best offer…
This article discusses Yanukovych’s options and criticizes the EU for not offering more assistance in the short term. However, it is clear that a non-exclusive trade deal with the EU was a far better option for Ukraine in the long-term than an exclusive customs union with Russia. And IMO the people of Kiev wanted exactly what Spiegel says the EU deal offered: “free trade and financial contributions in exchange for democratic reforms”. They didn’t want a president who would cave under pressure from Putin.
mpainter: “It is hardly imaginable that a populace would arise and overthrow its popularly elected President because he accepted a superior aid package.”
You can’t imagine this happening because you have succumbed to Russian propaganda that those were Neo-Nazis in the EuroMaidan. The facts are clear: 1) Yanukovych announces the deal with the EU won’t be signed. 2) The EuroMaidan protests begin the same day. Nevertheless it is “unimaginable” that 1) caused 2). When too many were killed in the EuroMaidan, Yanukovych’s allies deserted and he fled.
To quote the Kyiv Post: “The EuroMaidan is about two different visions for the future” of Ukraine. Crimea and Eastern Ukraine may be succumbing to Putin’s vision, but the heart of the Ukraine has not.
Those who insist that the Maidan coup was a “revolution” are not able to explain it in any terms except as a revolt against democracy. Yanukovitch was a popularly elected President who was facing a poll the following year.
Frank, you say
“I bought the ebook I linked above which is a collection of newspaper stories published by the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western group of investigative journalists”
#### #### ####
In this case “pro-western” is by definition anti-Russian. Did the book tell that the Ukraine economy fell into a severe recession after EuroMaidan, shrinking by over 18%? Did it tell that the EU stipulated that corruption in the Ukraine must be ended before it could be a serious candidate for membership? Indeed, the terms stipulated concerning corruption were explicit. What’s the chance of the Ukraine cleansing itself of its rampant corruption, pretty slim? Does the Ukraine appear as an attractive associate for the EU, with its Donbass war, its problem with Russia, its very big problem with its minorities? All considered, it’s doubtful that the Ukraine will realize EU membership.
Where is the fruit of the glorious EuroMaidan?
Is the truth about to emerge?
The four top executives of Fusion GPS have taken the fifth before Congress in response to the question “Who paid for the Dirty Dossier?”
Now we are hearing rumors that Russia paid for the Dirty Dossier. Today UN ambassador Nicki Haley spoke, addressing the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential elections and described such interference as “warfare” (!).
If Fusion GPS accepted $ from Russia to contrive the Dirty Dossier, that violates U.S. law, I believe, not registering as an agent for a foreign government and perhaps worse.
Are you trying to tie the rumors to Nickey Haley? Or was that just clumsy construction?
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said Thursday that interference in U.S. elections by another nation “is warfare,” telling an audience in New York that such meddling has become Russia’s go-to tactic
From politico
Is that supposed to be an answer for either of my questions? I don’t see anything there about Haley talking about rumors regarding Russia paying for the Dirty Dossier. Don’t you see any problem with your paragraph linking Haley, with the rumors you are spreading? Looks like you done been Hannitized. Did he say that on radio, today?
Don, I don’t understand your question as to whether Russia paid for the dossier. Fusion GPS certainly was willing to take money from anyone. If they could sell the same papers to the GOP, Clintons, FBI, and Russia I would say they are good at what they do.
Even if the dossier’s sources were authentically Russian it still does not mean they were providing authentic information or not feeding state calculated misinformation. The one notable topic missing from the dossier is Magnitsky Act or of lobbying of Trump for easing it. My thought is that Browder’s testimony was correct that the Magnitsky Act was Putin’s number 1 as shown by the lobbying of congressman Dana Rohrarbacher by Natalia and others. In fact the dossier fails to specifically mention what the Russian desired actions for dealing or compromising Trump. This supports it being approved misinformation.
I didn’t pose a question as to whether Russia paid for the dossier, or Santa Claus paid for it. Rumors don’t mean a whole lot to me. Read my comment again and I am sure you will get it.
Based on what we know so far, I am fairly confident that the dossier was paid for by American political opponents of Trump. No mystery why many folks would want to dig up some dirt on The Donald. He was running for President, like a bada$$, and taking no prisoners.
By the way, Fusion could legally be hired by foreign non-government individuals or firms to do research. The Foreign Agents Registration Act only relates to working for a foreign government entity in politically related activities. If Russian govt hired an American company to market vodka or caviar no registration required.
Fusion is like a fly by night private detective agency. They engage in seedy work and their clients do not want to be exposed. If they easily gave up a client’s ID, they would soon be out of business. If they are squeezed hard enough, they will give it up.
Such a word as “warfare” is not to be used casually. This might signal a different attitude taken by Trump toward Russia.
Yep, the truth is about to emerge. The House Committee on Intelligence has subpoenaed the banking records of Fusion GPS. They will get them. Will a Russian connection turn up? Probably. Probably Fusion paid the Russian intelligence sources who produced the salacious details on the Dirty Dossier.The $ would have been furnished by the Dems and Hillary. Here is your collusion with Russia to interfere in the U.S. presidential elections. Alternatively, the salacious details were provided free and whooops! Russia has contributed to the Democratic efforts and that’s naked collusion. 🙂
Steve wrote: “I think that the US bombing of North Korea in the Korean War was probably the most genocidal bombing campaign of the 20th century (I hadn’t heard of it until recently). I haven’t parsed, but it appears that a higher proportion of the population (20-30%) was killed than in any other campaign, along with any visible civil installation or crop. It was under the command of Curtis Lemay, a racist who was later VP candidate with George Wallace. Its devastation against civilians was unimaginable.
http://www.newsweek.com/us-forget-korean-war-led-crisis-north-592630
I presume you are familiar with Cold War historiography: Orthodox, Revisionist, and Post-Revisionist, The main source for both of your links is Cumings, IMO a classic revisionist whose worldview is anchored in the disillusionment of the Vietnam and Civil Rights era and unchanged by the new information about the real villains whose actions have been revealed only after the Cold War ended.
I wouldn’t pay any attention to LeMay’s bragging (like Trump’s). If you want to debate the issue, population data will prove that 20-30% of North Koreans couldn’t have died from bombing. Wikipedia says NK lost 1.5 million, about 1/3 military. Some of the rest fled south, some died of disease and starvation, and some died in bombing. Immediately after the war, Russian claimed 300,000 NK civilians died FROM BOMBING ALONE. (I’ve lost that reference.) In any case, losing even 10% of your civilian population in a war – whatever the reason – makes it one of the worst on record.
I tried and failed to find a primary source saying that the US dropped more bombs on NK than on Japan. This claim is in Wikipedia and has been spread throughout the web by the current crisis.
However, NK memories of the horror of the war linger because NK is drenched in propaganda. Other horrors from WWII and Vietnam don’t dominate the thoughts today of the countries that experienced them. Memories have deliberately been kept alive: NK, the 1953 coup in Iran, the Holocaust.
thanks for the balanced comment. Yes, one does have to watch for exaggeration. I was shocked at myself for knowing so little about the Korean War – entirely through the prism of episodes of MASH.
While memories of these past events have undoubtedly been “deliberately kept alive”, they also remain alive because they are more important to the population of the smaller country. To make good policy, that needs to be recognized.
Steve: You might glance at this short (post-revisionist) article covering some major areas of controversy. (It won’t tell you how many tons of bombs we dropped or how many North Korean civilians died from those bombs.)
https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/365/576
Frank, about 400,000 Germans were killed in the massive Allied bombing of German cities. It is highly unlikely that bombing killed anywhere near that number in largely rural N Korea.
We won’t know how many N Korean and Chinese helpers were killed, but it’s reliably known that about 1 million S Koreans were killed or carried off into slavery. Call me a white supremacist neo-N*zi, but I don’t care how many of the N Korean and Chinese aggressors died. And let’s not forget that it was United Nations forces that fought off the invading commie horde. I hate commies. Call me a neo-N*zi. I just don’t care.
The revisionists are largely full of sh!t. They think we should have lost the war.
Don, do you think it is ok for the 5 Eyes to spy on all their own citizens, circumventing national laws by letting foreign colleagues do that dirty work?
You will have to cite some cases where national laws were circumvented. Generally, I appreciate the work our intelligence agencies perform. Unlike you, I actually know what kind of people they are and what they do.
The comfort of endlessly hiding behind secret agreements, secret courts etc.; very commie-like
https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/1480
Don wrote: “about 400,000 Germans were killed in the massive Allied bombing of German cities. It is highly unlikely that bombing killed anywhere near that number in largely rural N Korea.”
I suspect you are right, but there is a variety of conflicting evidence – such as the quote from General LeMay that the Air Force had killed 20% (I think). There weren’t a lot of traditional industrial targets to bomb in NK, creating debate about what was worth bombing. The revisionists (in their 1960’s disappointment that their country wasn’t perfect) have chosen to present only part of the story. And the information that has been released since the end of the Cold War is often inconsistent with the claims of revisionists.
For example, see: John Gaddis (“We Now Know ..” on the origins of the Cold War) and Richard Frank (“Downfall …” who dispells the myth that we dropped atomic bombs on a Japan that was about to surrender). Gaddis teaches the most popular course at Yale (taken by 25%). Or, for a Climateaudit-style destruction of revisionist scholarship, try the little-known “The New Left and the Origins of the Cold War”, by Maddox. However, Gaddis dislikes labels since they interfere with properly evaluating evidence.
General LeMay was a braggart, Frank. He wouldn’t know more about how many people were killed in N Korea than anybody else. I am sure that a lot of the dead in N Korea were victims of lack of food and disease. The commies always give food and medical attention their cannon fodder and beasts of burden first. Anyway, they started it and I don’t care how many of them died. So we used lots of aerial bombing. That is what we had to do in a land war in Asia against a gazillion freaking people coming at us in human wave attacks. We had a lot of people killed there. What about them? I know you are on the right side, Frank. Some of these others, I don’t know.
Read the article. Thanks
If they could vote with their feet, where do you think the vast majority of the North Korean people would choose to live? Just wild guess, but I would still foolishly bet a lot of money they would choose the U.S or S. Korea, or Timbuktu over their homeland. I have talked with many ex-pat North Koreans.
Don wrote: “If they could vote with their feet, where do you think the vast majority of the North Korean people would choose to live?”
The negotiations to end the Korean war lasted for a ridiculously long time after both sides recognized a stalemate. The main issue was that NK POWs didn’t want to be shipped back to NK and the US was unwilling to force them to go. 21,000 Chinese chose to go to Taiwan rather than mainland China.
https://americainthekoreanwar.weebly.com/prisoners-of-war-exchange.html
You get it, Frank. It’s because we treated them like human beings. They didn’t want to go back to Hell on Earth. People are like that.
Don: Ignoring our failings (No Go RI, My Lai, Abu Graib, etc) is as bad exaggerating them as the revisionists do. And some of our allies, such as Rhee, will never look like “the good guys” even when compared with their Communist opponents. South Korean investigations in the 2000’s into potential US war crimes uncovered the likely slaughter of tens of thousands of Communist sympathizers in South Korea order by Rhee.
Neither you nor I are familiar with all of the evidence about how many NK civilians died from US bombing. Did LeMay have any real evidence or was he bragging. Are the population statistics used by experts (and checked by me) to estimate the true NK loses from all causes accurate? Experience teaches me that the revisionists in general exaggerated our mistakes and overlooked those of the Communists. That generality doesn’t mean that all allegations of the revisions were wrong.
Frank: “Memories have deliberately been kept alive: NK, the 1953 coup in Iran, the Holocaust.”
One of these things is not like the others.
Ron: My apologies. You are correct. The Jews don’t use the Holocaust to create a pathological fear of Germany. Israel has (or possibly had) a justifiable fear of being overrun by Arabs (replaced by Iranian or Palestinian WMD).
Keeping the Holocaust alive as a reminder that humans can commit genocide serves a useful purpose. Also as a reminder of the dangerous idea that one group is innately superior to others. In the Ukraine, Ukrainian-speaking citizens vs Russian- or Hungarian speakers.
(With 20/20 hindsight, I should have not had opened this door. Clearly we still remember the Holocaust today, but I was too lazy to figure out why it didn’t belong with the others.)
Very eloquently put. Thank you, Frank.
Holomodor:
Frank, the Ukrainians might want the ethnic Russians, who may think they are superior and want to rejoin the Motherland, to speak Ukrainian and become integrated into the Ukrainian nation, that has from the beginning of time suffered from Russian oppression.
mpainter and others point out that Tymoshenko was convicted by Kanukovych’s government. However, the only charge she was convicted of was “abuse of office” over a natural gas imports contract signed with Russia in January 2009. These charges effectively criminalised the political decision she had taken as Prime Minister. The EU doesn’t believe any crime was involved; their deal with the Ukraine demanded her release. Amnesty International supported her cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_cases_against_Yulia_Tymoshenko_since_2010
You can find video from her trial (Kangaroo court).
Mpainter complains that the law used to convict Tymoshenko was repealed. If doing her normal functions as prime minister without any evidence of bribery or kickbacks is a crime – abuse of power – perhaps that law should have been repealed.
Like many of her fellow oligarchs, Tymoshenko may have dirty hands from the privatization following the disintegration of the USSR. However, she hasn’t been convicted of any crimes from this period.
Tymoshenko is not a former Communist. She graduated from university in 1984, too late to run mishandling of privatization. In 1989, she started a video rental business – not the normal path to becoming an oligarch. You can read about her potential corrupt in the gas business here, but that was almost two decades ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.gender
We have a parallel in the U.S. of the Tymoshenko affair. Tymoshenko was absolved of her guilt through a parliamentary diktat issued by the usurpation. In the U.S., Hillary Clinton was absolved of her guilt through the office of the corrupt James Comey. Comey, Clinton, Lynch, will all have to face the music.
By contrast, Tymoshenko gets to keep her loot. How sweet it is to be on the winning side of a coup.
mpainter: “In the U.S., Hillary Clinton was absolved of her guilt through the office of the corrupt James Comey. Comey, Clinton, Lynch, will all have to face the music.
To my knowledge, the only one who tried to corrupt Comey was Donald Trump, and Comey allegedly refused to pledge his loyalty. Clinton wasn’t absolved of all wrongdoing by Comey. He candidly testified in front of Congress to a long list of mistakes she made, but stated – rightly or wrongly – it would be improper to bring criminal charges because – in his opinion – there was little chance of conviction given the evidence the FBI had obtained.
Senator Grassley has obtained FBI documents written by Comey showing that he had given up hope of indictment before all of the witnesses had been interviewed. This likely accounts for the absurdly favorable co-operation agreements given to HRC associates.
mpainter write: “By contrast, Tymoshenko gets to keep her loot.”
Neither Tymoshenko nor the Clintons have been tried for the potentially corrupt practices that earned the Clinton’s more than $100 million through the Clinton foundation and Tymoshenko about $1B from a monopoly on gas distribution. Tymoshenko was tried and convicted for “abuse of power” as Prime Minister (not her already-scruntinized business practices more than a decade earlier). That verdict was overturned by the Ukrainian Supreme Court.
Frank, this gets excessively political, but there’s no doubt that Hillary Clinton is guilty of a number of crimes that she could be prosecuted for, but Comey decided to exonerate her before even interviewing her. The whole cooperation agreements with Mills etc were indeed absurd and entirely prejudicial to justice.
Clinton did have classified information on her private server, the FBI proved that beyond doubt, and that is a crime that DOES NOT require intent, read the relevant statutes. She also has committed perjury before a Federal Judge by swearing that she had released all relevant emails, whereas some those recovered by the FBI are indeed relevant and were NOT released. Thirdly, the deletion of the emails by her staff after a Congressional subpoena is also proven and is an obstruction of justice crime – one Clinton may not have handled personally but is responsible for.
The FBI could easily have indicted her on any or all of those. Convicting her might be hard given the corruption of justice prevalent in political circles, but the evidence is very strong and very hard to refute. Comey just made sure that he didn’t even attempt to indict, he’d almost certainly already been instructed to do so.
And given what is coming out about the Uranium One deal and the corruption uncovered by the FBI that was also completely covered up, a pattern certainly seems to be emerging. Certain people in Washington were not subject to the same laws as the rest of us, they were/are protected people – and that is utterly corrupt and corrosive to the rule of law we ostensibly live under.
The voters of the Ukraine apparently are not convinced by that Supreme Court ruling. Maybe they smell a rigged verdict. Because, they gave Tymoshenko only 25% of the votes in 2014 that they had given her in 2010.
All your lipstick unavailing, Frank.
Frank, the events of the last couple of days suggest that Comey may have a lot more to answer for in pre-acquitting Hillary prior to interviewing her, an in being involved in the Uranium transaction approval. Mueller may also have some $t sticking to his fur. Venezuela may be a good study, as well.
Ed Snack: Steve has permitted an discussion of these issues on another post, so perhaps he will tolerate a summary here.
IMO, HRC’s private email server obviously was intended to keep her email secret; not to disclose top secret information. One statue covering criminal disclosure of top secret information requires proof of intent to disclose. I presume that you aren’t arguing that HRC should have been indicted under that statute. The other statue concerns excessive negligence in the handling of secret information. It has only been used in one prosecution, when it was proven that gross negligence revealed top secret information reached our enemies. As a prosecutor, you could logically bring that case, but you face two challenges: 1) Most of the email on HRC’s server later classified top secret (and a few already marked classified) were SENT to HRC at @clintonmail.com by at least a dozen DoS employees in violation of regulations. Few were written by HRC. (Secure communications were only available on special computers in DoS offices, not via routine @dos.gov email accounts. The DoS had no 24/7 secure email for top officials.) Knowledge of these problems was widespread, but no one wanted to tell the boss she was violating regulations. Are you going to prosecute all these officials, or just HRC, under a law that has only been used once? 2) It is unethical to indict someone if you don’t expect to win in the courtroom.
HRC appears to have had no personal involvement with the destruction of her email records. That process was handled by Cheryl Mills, Platte River (the techs who managed the server) and private attorneys working for HRC. The attorneys are protected by attorney-client privilege, a revolting absurdity given they weren’t cleared for classified information. Any documents HRC signed about the process her attorneys followed returning her work email to the DoS were drafted by her attorneys, making it nearly impossible to prove that HRC perjured herself by signing them. SM has written about the destruction process and I criticized the “cooperation agreements” that stifled this investigation. The Platte River employee who wiped the server initially lied to the FBI and, after receiving a immunity, told the FBI he had wiped the server on his own initiative (after being notified of the subpoena) because he had forgotten to execute the instructions he had received before the subpoena arrived. If the DoJ had indicted him for his crimes, perhaps he would have told a different story that implicated Cheryl Mills. By the time that investigation was complete, the election would be over.
Ed wrote: “The FBI could easily have indicted her on any or all of those.” The FBI investigates, but doesn’t indict. Prosecutors in other parts of the DoJ indict and try cases. AG Lynch was the government official responsible for deciding whether or not to indict HRC, but Comey believed she was compromised and should have recused herself (as Sessions has). So he (a former dAG) appears to have bypassed Lynch, unilaterally announced and defended the FBI’s internal recommendation to the DoJ – and disclosed a great deal of information about HRCs mistakes that the FBI learned in the course of an investigation. He has been criticized for his candor, but IMO such candor is precedented and appropriate in cases of great interest to the public.
Those who believe that Comey is corrupt ignore the (undeniable?) fact that he unnecessarily involved himself in controversies that would have been handled by AG Lynch in a manner more favorable to HRC. His motivations and mistakes aren’t consistent with a hypothesis of simple political corruption – as DT discovered when he asked for loyalty.
The $100+ million the Clintons have “earned” since 2000 and the high overhead at the Clinton foundation (70%) reeks of corruption and influence peddling. This swamp is the real issue, not HRC’s email server. (The server was the subject of a complaint filed by the DoS IG.) I’d be thrilled if the Uranium One investigation leads to something more than just allegations of kickbacks in a trucking company associated with that firm.
What I don’t understand is why partisans on both sides don’t acknowledge that the same organizations paying $500,000 to Bill Clinton and making even larger donations to the Clinton Foundation are the same ones hiring Paul Manafort and meeting with DT Jr and Kushner about circumventing the Magnitsky Act. It is this corruption (IMO) that brought Ukrainians into the EuroMaidan AND American voters to the polls in the hopes of draining our swamp.
Respectfully, Frank
Frank, Comey is a bum. He did not do his job. What Comey did was to let the Obama-Democrat party stooge DOJ, that had been badly compromised by the Lynch-Billyboy tarmac meeting, off the hook. He saved the DOJ and the Democrats from the political repercussions of giving Hillary a pass. He did not have the responsibility, the legal authority, or the moral authority to do it. Lynch did not even recuse herself, reserving the right to intervene if things went badly for Hillary. The fix was in and Comey rolled with it. I won’t accuse the guy of being corrupt, but he is certainly a screw up and did not faithfully live up to his oath of office. I think we are about to find out about some other shady acts that big self-serving leaker goon committed.
What evidence of corruption do you see in the meeting of Junior and Kushner, with the Russian lawyer?
Frank: ” This swamp is the real issue, not HRC’s email server.”
The swamp is a real issue, but the email server is also a very big issue. That a Secretary of State could treat official records, including highly classified materials as her own personal property is very corrupt. The only reason she did it was to be able to hide any mistakes she made or corruption she engaged in. She had zero right to put the records on her own server and put the interests of the government of the US way below her own selfish interests. What she did is exactly what the writers of the law imposing criminal liability for negligence desired to prevent. The fact that prosecutors hadn’t used it in the past is more an indictment of the prosecutors than the validity of the law.
JD
jddohio wrote: “She had zero right to put the records on her own server and put the interests of the government of the US way below her own selfish interests.”
Exactly. Both the Congress and the public (FOI) have the right to review official government records (transparency). HRC failed to meet her transparency obligations, but there are no criminal penalties for these failures – except obstruction of justice when material has been subpoenaed. However, all of Hillary’s correspondents with DoS email addresses had a copy of their correspondence with HRC in their accounts. Those records were in the system, which is how the FBI knew that some work related emails had been deleted. We should only be missing work email sent outside the DoS.
jddohio continued: “What she did is exactly what the writers of the law imposing criminal liability for negligence desired to prevent.”
I disagree. You are confusing negligence in “transparency” with HRC’s negligence in keeping classified records secret. In the latter case, HRC’s passion for secrecy and her obligations to the country coincided to some extent.
Yes, HRC’s email server was insecure, but so was the non-classified system used by the DoS. Cheryl Mills put HRC’s email into the hands of uncleared private attorneys, who allegedly separated work from private. She (and perhaps Hillary) could be charged with excessive negligence here. However, almost all of the email became insecure on Hillary’s server and then in the hands of her private attorneys because DoS personnel sent classified information to an nonsecure email address in the first place. The whole department wasn’t following their security rules. Those rules conflicted with a need for 24/7 communication. Whose excessive negligence do you prosecute – those who were properly trained in secure email, but ignored the rules occasionally or those too important to bother to learn the rules (and who can claim ignorance).
I don’t like it. However, no prosecutor would ever obtain a conviction. Why are you picking on HRC, who wasn’t properly informed of the rules, and not everyone else? DoS security knew exactly what she was doing (except the location of her server) and did nothing to stop it. It would be more practical to prosecute them all than just HRC alone – using a law that was used only once in the past.
Hillary knew all about document rules. In the Whitewater scandal, it was recommended that she be charged with obstruction of justice for concealing documents on her billings to the crooked company. Hillary’s associates also invaded the potential crime scene to ransack Vince Foster’s documents for his copy of her billings. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this ancient scandal, she know all about document preservation.
Also don’t forget that Sandy Berger and his wife were close friends of Hillary. Berger was given a light conviction by Comey for stealing and destroying a single document (removed from National Archives in his underwear) that presumably placed the Clinton administration in a bad light in respect to 9/11. Hillary was determined to avoid such a possibility in the future.
Frank you say “no prosecutor could obtain a conviction”
=== ==== ====
Manifestly untrue. Hillary stands convicted by the evidence. A trial would simply be a formality. Comey, Hillary,Lynch, others are corrupt and this needs to be dealt with lest corruption go unpunished.
WTF, Frank? What makes you think the SOS was not properly informed of the rules? She was so grossly negligent it ain’t funny. It’s BS that the whole dept. was not following security rules. And if they weren’t, that would be no excuse for the SOS to be grossly negligent in following the rules. What about the ambassador who got canned for setting up a private email? Do you seriously believe that Hillary was not aware that private email for government business was not OK? Or that no one brought her arrangement up as a problem? You haven’t done your homework on this one, Frank. Comey was full of sh!t when he claimed no prosecutor would take the case to trial. I have seen several former federal prosecutors say they would have nailed her.
Don writes: “What makes you think the SOS was not properly informed of the rules? She was so grossly negligent it ain’t funny. It’s BS that the whole dept. was not following security rules. And if they weren’t, that would be no excuse for the SOS to be grossly negligent in following the rules. What about the ambassador who got canned for setting up a private email? Do you seriously believe that Hillary was not aware that private email for government business was not OK? Or that no one brought her arrangement up as a problem? You haven’t done your homework on this one, Frank.”
I got my information from watching the testimony of Comey in front of a House Committee with challenging questioning from several sharp Republican attorneys, including Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor. It is on CSPAN and Youtube and the transcript on the House Judiciary? website. If you listen to that testimony, you’ll hear that the FBI was told that DoS security was fully aware that HRC was using a private email server, but never asked about its location or investigated its security arrangements. No one tried to stop this practice or looked into exactly what she was doing. HRC had only begun to use email two years earlier during her campaign against Obama and only via a Blackberry. She had never used a personal computer, and the secure email system for classified information only ran on specially modified PCs in State Department Offices. She was technologically ignorant. No one wanted to tell the almost- and possible-future-President that she needed to learn how to work differently to meet the department’s obligations for security and transparency. Especially when she was the boss and could modify those rules. And she was insulated from such annoyances by chief of staff Cheryl Mills, the family consigliere and hatchet man since Bill’s impeachment. The NSA gave President Obama a secure Blackberry so that he could have 24/7 secure email (which was continuously monitored by a staff of four), but not HRC. As head of the FBI, Comey had secure email at home, but not the SoS. Hillary didn’t know how to use it anyway; she let her assistants printout and type her secure email at work. Anyone wanting a timely response from HRC needed to use her .clintonmail.com email address, because she was rarely in her office and sometimes away for more than a week.
HRC had never dealt with classified information before becoming SoS. If you think that she would be required to attend a class for new employees on handling classified email, think again. Want to schedule a private tutoring session with a busy technologically inept SoS? Try getting an appointment. Yes, she was too important to worry about the rules. But, in a courtroom it could look like no one bothered to explain or enforce the rules. According to Comey, HRC failed to recognize some of the classification symbols found on the email she received.
I’m speculating now, but it is possible that the government would be unable to put a single witness on the stand who would testify that they had told HRC she was breaking the rules. Even then, the prosecutor would be faced with a “his word against hers” situation. I’m not aware of any written memos, and one would still prefer proof that HRC had taken the time to read it. Security had bigger concerns that they DID raise with her. When she took her Blackberry overseas, it apparently could be infected with software that that would broadcast what was being said during meetings. At work, she was asked to lock her Blackberry in a safe on a floor away from the offices and meeting rooms of top officials. I don’t know what she did with her phone during meetings in the White House.
Thanks for the info about the resignation of Ambassador Scott Grafton partly on the basis of misuse of email uncovered by an inspection. The Inspector General of the DoS was responsible for filing a complaint with the FBI about HRC’s email. Grafton was allowed to resign. In contrast, HRC’s case was sent to the FBI. Comey told Congress that – if an ambassador or SoS intended to give away secrets – they would suffer criminal prosecution. If there was no intent to disclose, they might be fired or lose their security clearance – just like Ambassador Grafton. HRC had already resigned as SoS and couldn’t be denied a new security clearance if the voters elected her President.
By way of contrast, David Petraus hid classified material in his attic and told his lover/biographer she wasn’t supposed to have access to the material he shared with her, providing clear proof of intent. Then he lied to the FBI when they investigated. He was prosecuted.
Frank, Comey’s testimony before congress has not necessarily been entirely factual and complete. We know that already, and he has got a lot of splainin to do.
I don’t care what she knew before becoming SOS (she was in the WH for eight years and experienced classified briefings on Senate Armed Services Com. for six years). No babe in the woods. Most competent Pres. candidate ever.
I know that she had a detailed briefing on what it means to have a TOP SECRET clearance. I guarantee you that it included detailed instructions on communicating classified information and many warnings about being negligent with classified material. They do mention jail as a possible consequence of carelessness. And you have to sign off on receiving and understanding that briefing. The fact is that she was grossly negligent with classified material. Period. That a lot of people let her get away with it, because they feared her is irrelevant.
You are basing your opinion on whether she should be prosecuted on the pathetic FBI investigation and Comey’s conclusion, that he had apparently decided upon long before the faux investigation was completed. There should have been a grand jury impaneled and instead of passing out immunity like candy, the witnesses should have been hauled before the grand jury and freaking interrogated. Somebody told those people to destroy 33,000 of Hillary’s emails that may very well have contained evidence that could have put the whole lot of them in jail. You are forgetting that gross negligence is not the only charge that could have come out of the investigation. And ignorance of the law is no excuse for any of the possible offences. Don’t forget that nearly all these people are lawyers.
Mpainter: “Hillary stands convicted by the evidence. A trial would simply be a formality.”
Where I live, people are only convicted in a courtroom on the basis of evidence that both sides have equal opportunity to present and cross-examine in front of an open-minded jury. It would be nice to try fossil fuels under such a system, but in the IPCC, Putin’s Russia and Yanukovych’s Ukraine, the accused are presumed guilty and trials are a formality. The conviction rate is greater than 99% and the defense is not allowed to present a case at the IPCC. Perhaps you are more familiar with those systems than the one where I live.
mpainter: “Comey, Hillary, Lynch, others are corrupt and this needs to be dealt with lest corruption go unpunished.”
“Dealing with corruption” was one of the rationals for the EuroMaidan and Orange protests that you abhor. How about protesting until Jeff Sessions agrees to try HRC? Or do you skip the unnecessary preliminaries and “lock her up”.
Where I live it is what’s known as an open and shut case. Classified State Department documents were found on her personal computer. Bang, she’s dead.
Frank,
I’ve been observing the thread for the past few days and I have a few questions to ask?
1. Are you a defense or trial attorney? (I’ve not read all of your comments in this forum.
2. Are working for the DNC or any part for HRC?
3. If either are true above are true are practicing for a possible trial?
Thank you in advance for your answers.
I need to read and edit the comments before I send them.
Your questions are quite comprehensible and well conceived. I hope Frank answers, thanks.
I don’t know who Frank is, but what are the odds of a 10-year reader of Climate Audit, who, additionally, speaks respectfully of Climate Audit efforts to be precise and factual, being a lawyer for DNC or HRC? Less than zero. Chances of him being a lawyer or professional in non-climate science field are very high, based on background of long-time CA readers.
I have read all of Franks comments and don’t see why anyone would get the idea he was working for Hillary, the DNC or that Frank is particularly political. Weird questions? I am guessing that if Frank bothers to respond, the answers will be no no and no.
Why not let Frank speak for himself?
I have a Ph.D. in chemistry, but a weak background statistics and so rarely if ever commented on CA’s technical posts. Steve’s recommendation sent me to ScienceofDoom where I have learned something about the physics of climate science. Call me a lukewarmer and supporter of Nic Lewis and EBMs. Regularly download and read papers. Own about a dozen books on the subject. Find the group think associated with climate science appalling and the den1ers worse.
Since I live in a non-battleground state whose electoral vote was irrelevant, I choose to waste my vote in protest by writing in the name of someone I thought would make a good president.
Occasionally I try to understand why our court system comes to the seemingly absurd legal conclusions it reaches. When I try to set my personal biases aside and read a case, I’m usually forced to admit that I can’t even tell whose arguments conclusively better – with the type of confidence one can have after performing a good scientific experiment. I recommend the National Constitution Center, which provides non-partisan forums where experts (often those filing briefs) politely debate both sides of the issue and agree on common ground. At least I’m educated about the issue even if they don’t have a “scientific” resolution.
Watching Comey testify in front of the House Republicans provided similar background about the email case. I could argue both sides of excessive negligence, but don’t believe HRC would ever be convicted on that issue. The private server was all about obstructing Congress’s oversight and transparency (FOI) – obstruction of justice in my layman’s opinion. History, the Clinton’s passion for secrecy, the vast sums of money flowing through their foundation and into their pockets tells me everything I need to know about whether they are corrupt. In my dreams, a special prosecutor will force Cheryl Mills to cooperate and expose everything – assuming my judgment is correct. The McDougals went to jail rather than talk and we ended up with unnecessary perjury and a farce.
Events of the past two years (particularly the child sex ring at the Cosmic Ping Pong and our current president’s unfamiliarity with the concept of truth) have decreased my tolerance for “fake news”. Seeing what appears to be “fake news” at THIS site struck a nerve and the responses I received inflamed the situation. So I learned something about Ukraine (to add to my existing prejudices) and tried to correct what I believe are factual errors – and add a different perspective. I also learned something new about Neo-Nazis. Yanukovych appears to have been unnecessarily violent with the demonstrators, but some brought and fired guns at the final showdown. The lack of investigation suggests that some politicians may have been involved.
Frank wants to retry Julia Tymoshenko here on CA. And find her innocent. While disputing Wikipedia that reports that she was convicted of embezzlement and ordered to repay $188 million. And ignoring the fact that her appeals to higher courts were all lost.
She won 45% of the votes in 2010, as candidate for president, but….12.8% in 2014. This tally without the votes of the Crimea or the Donbass, both overwhelmingly against her in 2010. That 12.8% indicates to me that Ukrainians are not impressed by her claims of innocence. But she has Frank’s vote.
Tymoshenko was released and rehabilitated by parliamentary diktat, not by the court system by which she was found guilty and which rejected her appeals. Frank approves of parliamentary diktats, it seems.
The question remains: how were the series of parliamentary diktats, beginning on February 22 and continuing for weeks, enforced in view of the fact that these were all unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to law?
The EU demands an end to corruption in the Ukraine as a condition for its consideration for EU membership, this condition stated formally.
I see this condition as a permanent bar to Ukrainian membership. I doubt that the EU wants another liability as it has in Greece. The Ukraine has been scr*wed. EuroMaidan has backfired on the usurpers. And here is Frank, still trying to put lipstick on EuroMaidan.
The EU needs Ukraine like a bullet through the head. They are struggling now with Brexit, Cataluna, Austrian and Czech election results.
It’s hard to believe that the EU was ever serious about Ukraine membership in that organization. From the present perspective, EU encouragement appears as bait to encourage the Maidan coup. Now the Ukraine is a shambles with a crippled economy and a festering wound in her polity and with blighted prospects for the future. What do they now think of Obama, Joe Biden and Nuland, I wonder.
mpainter writes: “Frank wants to retry Julia Tymoshenko here on CA. And find her innocent.”
As usual, mpainter is ignorant of any facts that don’t agree with his worldview. I don’t need to retry Tymoshenko, the Ukrainian Supreme Court has already dealt with her case and found her innocent. Parliamentary action may have been responsible for her release, but the Ukrainian legal system has properly dealt with her case.
http://tass.com/world/727757
The Supreme Court was dismissed by parliamentary diktat on February 22 or soon thereafter. So where did Julia Tymoshenko find a Court to rule on her case? They made a new one for her.
Frank, you ignore the fact that the coup overthrew all organs of government and reshaped them according to the diktats of the usurpers.
And you call others ignorant. In fact, your world view is shaped by the rubbish that gets churned out by the usurpers and you make yourself a repeater of that. Others know better.
In fact, the law was changed by parliament, and I suspect that it now longer applies to the circumstances concerning Tymoshenko. Here’s what the Court said: that there was no case against Tymoshenko under the present law. How sweet it is to be on the winning side of a coup.
mpainter writes: “From the present perspective, EU encouragement appears as bait to encourage the Maidan coup.
More fantasies that have no basis in fact. The EU approach to the Ukraine began in 2009 with an initiative to set up an Eastern Partnership. It was targeted at Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, as well as Ukraine. It began before Yanukovych was even elected in 2010, so its purpose could hardly have been to encourage the Maidan coup. For almost three years, Yanukovych negotiated a place for the Ukraine in this partnership and was expected to sign the agreement on November 29, 2013. Unfortunately, he gave into pressure from Putin in November 2013 and cancelled on November 24, 2013. The EuroMaidan protests began with this cancellation and ended when Yanukovych’s allies deserted him after too many protesters were killed.
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/international-affairs/eastern-partnership_en
mpainter asked: What do [Ukrainians] now think of Obama, Joe Biden and Nuland, I wonder.
I suspect they are wondering how Obama, HRC, Trump and mpainter could be so willfully blind about Putin’s true nature and could be fooled into thinking the US relationship with Russia could be reset by a little good will on the part of the US. Putin’s objective is to re-incorporate the Ukraine – or whatever fraction of it he can get – into a new Russian empire.
Don’t you get tired of being proved wrong? How about a link every now and then backing up your assertions, which all too often have no basis in fact.
Easy as one, two, three:
1. Organize a coup that overthrows
a popularly elected government.
2. Using the neo-n___thugs as enforcers, reconstitute all organs of government and make up new rules as you go along.
3. Write your version of events in glorified terms, knowing that the Franks of the world will faithfully copy you.
Easy.
Frank, if you believe that the Ukraine ever was taken seriously as a candidate for admission to the EU, you are deluded.
Frank: Don’t you get tired of being proved wrong? How about a link every now and then backing up your assertions, which all too often have no basis in fact.
### ######
Go read the thread, Frank. Lots of links by many others, some from Steve McIntyre, who takes a view similar to mine. So go read and stop the ad hominems, please and thank you.
You need to stop your habit of repeating arguments that have already been refuted. Again, read the thread above.
You haven’t refuted anything Frank said in his last comment. Frank is way smarter than you are. He is giving you demonstrable facts. And he has an objective mindset. You are like a dog fighting over a bone. All bark, no think. Stop embarrassing yourself. There is a lot of good news for Trump coming out. You don’t have to keep up the demeaning apologies for Putin. The Russia Russia Russia thing is about be hung around Hillary’s fat neck. Relax and enjoy it.
“All bark, no think” barks Don Monfort.
You are really amusing, painter. Frank points out that you only offer assertions and no facts to support your foolishness. You answer: Well, Steve agrees with me. But when Steve disagrees with you, you make him out to be a no ‘count idgit. Nice work.
You should think. Just try it. Once, won’t hurt you. You can stop, whenever you want.
Don, nothing but barks, growls and whines left in you. Then you complain that “this blog has gone to the dogs”. You are an amusing fellow.
Don, nothing but barks, growls and whines left in you. Then you complain that “this blog has gone to the dogs”. You are an amusing fellow.
Don Monfort October 22 11:11 am:
“This blog has gone to the dogs. Nuff said.”
Nobody took a knee:
https://www.chonday.com/5595/anthofius3/
My Mom used to send me down to my Grandpa in KY on the Greyhound for a few weeks in the Summer. They called it Bloody Harlan County. There is a doc. movie about the Harlan County wars. But coming from Detroit it was quite peaceful and pleasant to get out in the woods and fish and hunt tasty little critters.
mpainter writes: “The Supreme Court was dismissed by parliamentary diktat on February 22 or soon thereafter. So where did Julia Tymoshenko find a Court to rule on her case? They made a new one for her. Frank, you ignore the fact that the coup overthrew all organs of government and reshaped them according to the diktats of the usurpers.”
Is this opinion or fact you can back up with a reliable source?
You can see video on youtube of the sitting Parliament dismissing Yanukovych on 2/22/13, the day he fled the country because the army and police were no longer willing to follow his orders. Parliament voted unanimously to do so, but about 1/4 of the members were absent. Perhaps some were absent because they feared the demonstrators, but the institution never stopped functioning. They set up an election for a new president in May and appointed an interim President.
I can find no evidence the Ukrainian Supreme Court was ever replaced before ruling on Tymoshenko’s case on 6/24/14. Reforming the Ukrainian judicial system has taken a long time and a novel system for selecting judges without interference from politicians was just put in place in the past few months.
“http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international-affairs/349283-ukraine-is-on-its-way-to-ending-corruption-through
Parliament did dismiss the 5 (of 18) judges they appointed to the Ukrainian Constitutional Court in 2006 with two years remaining on their 9-year terms. This court doesn’t handle criminal cases like Tymoshenko’s; it rules on the constitutionality of laws made by Parliament and actions taken by the executive branch. In 2010 (under Yanokuvych, it overturned amendments to the constitution adopted in 2004 that limited presidential authority. Yanukovych had agreed to restore the 2004 constitution as demanded by the Maidan demonstrators in the compromise presented on 2/21/14.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine#2004_and_2010_amendments_and_alleged_2014_return_to_2004_amendments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution#cite_note-271
FWIW, I personally wish that Yanukovych had reached an agreement with the opposition that was acceptable to the protestors in the Euromaidan. Once too much blood has been spilled, mobs can no longer be controlled by their leaders. I think it is a tragedy that the elected leader of a country deserted his position and fled to another country without formally resigning his position. Perhaps this outcome was orchestrated by Putin.
The article linked below discusses democratically elected governments in a dozen countries that have been replaced or are being challenged by popular demonstrations and asks what makes change legitimate or illegitimate in the eyes of other democracies? I don’t know enough to comment on most of these countries (including Iceland). It does point out that the dilemma faced by the Ukrainian government was not unique.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/maciej-bartkowski/popular-uprising-against-_b_9567604.html
Frank, the Ukraine parliament issued a series of unconstitutional legislative diktats starting on February 22. The coup was unconstitutional and illegal and all that issued from the coup likewise. One such diktat was the revision of the law under which Tymoshenko was convicted. The Supreme Court ruled on this revised law, not the old law under which Tymoshenko was convicted. You are trying to legitimize the events of that coup, Frank, but it doesn’t wash.
“Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier” even the WaPo has to admit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.5c8acf1756ca
Me no Fusion GPS, me no dirty dossier, say all the DNC officials. Meanwhile, Hillary lies low and keeps quiet.
I just browsed Hillary’s What Happened in a book store. It has an interesting section about events involving the Steele Dossier. I couldnt bring myself to buy a copy of the book. It would be nice if someone would scan the relevant section.
Here’s a debate video with HRC saying the hacking orders came “clearly from Putin himself”
Sounds familiar..
From WaPo October 25:
In the summer of 2016, according to The Washington Post, the FBI convinced a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that there was probably cause to believe that Trump adviser Carter Page was acting as a Russian agent, and the received a warrant to monitor his communications. The FBI also began investigating a dossier prepared by a well-respected former British spy that contained explosive and salacious allegations about compromising information the Russians had on Trump. The intelligence community took the dossier seriously enough that it briefed both President Obama and President-elect Trump on its contents before the inauguration.
=== === ===
Quoted from What Happened. In fact, her campaign had shopped the Dirty Dossier around the media for months, but could find no takers. No one would touch it, coming from the Democrats as it did. Then someone hit upon the idea of briefing Trump on it, giving it a face of authenticity and then leaking that January 10 “briefing” to the media. This clever ploy meant that the dossier’s true origin had to be concealed.
do you have a more extended excerpt?
The dossier was used to secure a FISA warrant against Page and Manafort and who else? It’s doubtful that the warrant have been granted if the court had known that the dossier originated via Hillary as opposition research. Comey would likely have hid its true origin. That is where the Steele connection comes in: he purportedly furnished the FBI with the memoranda on his own initiative, starting in July. Thus the FBI can cite a source to the FISA court other than Hillary Clinton.
Do we KNOW this? Perhaps he had instructions. Which raises an interesting question regarding the current Demo excuse that it was just “oppo research”. One would presume that someone employed to do oppo research would require instructions from his principal to inform FBI or CIA, since the work product would be the property of the DNC. What communications and instructions did Steele have? Same for Fusion GPS.
Same for Marc Elias. I realize that lawyers have legal shield for legal advice, but it seems unreasonable to me that this would extend to disinformation.
According to i-net sources, Steele furnished the memoranda thru an FBI agent in Rome (?). Lotsa questions. I wonder what he told Mueller’s goons or if they dug this deep. Indeed, the research information was owned by the Hillary campaign, yet Steele accepted $ from the FBI for the same,?ethics? Also, Steele last in Russia 20 years ago. ?contacts? Suggests he may have relied on M-16 sources. Some interesting aspects here. The May government was against Trump.
No more of the WaPo excerpt from What Happened.
Also,if the FBI paid Steele, was not this a subsidy of Hillary oppo research? Collusion with Russia by Comey’s? 🙂
The FBI and other leakers have always referred to Steele as a “respected former British spy.” Comey has used the word “respected.” (Did they refer Fusion to C. Steele?)
So that is probably how the warrant applications deal with the Steele information, as coming from a “respected” source rather than “a contractor for the Clinton campaign.”
The FBI probably got each memo the day after Elias got each memo. Or the memos went like so between Fusion and the FBI directly. If Steele handed a bunch of his memos later to the FBI himself, that does not mean the FBI did not already have them.
same phrase used by Hillary (h/t mpainter): “well-respected former British spy”
Adjective is ironically LeCarresque.
HAbakkuk’s take on Litvinenko death is fascinating. According to his articles from several years ago, one of the skills of a “respected” British spy is the ability to construct fictitious dossiers.
The dossier looked fabricated to me from the start. Most memoranda comment on known events, so that there is a texture of reality to casual readers. It is the non-public details which are damning and fabricated.
Comey used to be “well respected”.
I find it interesting how Steve McIntyre says:
HAbakkuk’s take on Litvinenko death is fascinating. According to his articles from several years ago, one of the skills of a “respected” British spy is the ability to construct fictitious dossiers.
I think most people here could guess McIntyre was not referring to the prophet of over 2,000 years ago. I doubt, however, many people here would know who David Habakkuk is. As best I can tell, the most notable presence he has is guest posts on a blog – not exactly the sort of source you’d normally cite by one name.
What’s even more interesting is this source argue the Steele Dossier was part of a soft coup planned “by leading figures in American intelligence, in collusion with their counterparts in Britain.” It’s almost as though conspiracy theorists aren’t just welcome sources here, but readers are expected to know who they are.
This isn’t the first time either. It was just a few weeks ago McIntyre promoted the nonsensical analysis of one Petri Krohn, a conspiracy nut, without any context or explanation to readers as to who the guy was, as though people would have actually heard of him.
But hey, maybe I’m just spreading disinformation as part of the campaign to launch a coup against the president.
Brandon, by saying that someone’s take on one matter is interesting, does not imply an endorsement of all other views. Because Steele has turned out to be a central figure in this dispute, it’s entirely legitimate to examine information about Steele. Obviously, the entire matter is murky. I’ve said so on many occasions. It is pedantic and impractical to attach all caveats to every blog comment.
Steve McIntyre:
Sure, but when a person makes a habit of referring to obscure conspiracy theorists as though readers ought to know who they are, without offering any indication of the rather loony views those people hold, it is reasonable to be concerned.* At a minimum, citing a person as just “Habakkuk” like you did is wrong because there is no way any reader should have any idea who you were talking about.
Beyond this, the two views in question are quite unrelated. Habakkuk uses Steele’s supposed cover-up and falsification of evidence in the Litvinenko assassination to support his narrative of Steele being a dishonest spook who’s dossier was created as part of an planned attempt at a soft coup against the President of the United States.
The two ideas have become quite linked. If there was no great cover-up in the Litvinenko assassination, Habakkuk has no precedent for claiming Steele fabricates evidence or engaged in other dishonest acts. If Steele’s behavior in making his dossier was on the up and up, then it’s difficult to argue he fabricated evidence in the Litvinenko assassination.
I don’t think expecting people to warn readers a source they refer to (without any information which would help people identify that source, find his comments or judge his credibility) claims there was a major conspiracy to have a coup against the President of the United States is demanding one “attach all caveats to every blog comment.” The only caveat I’m asking for is one like, “Be warned, this guy has some conspiracy theories tied to this issue that may seem outlandish.”
Failing that, maybe just some description of who the person is, what they’ve said, where it can be found or why anyone should care about their views as opposed to any other random person you could have found on the internet.
*Similarly, nobody spoke out when Mark Steyn cited conspiracy theorists as experts despite them saying things like global warming is a hoax created by the UN to destroy modern civilization. Nobody even acknowledged it. “Skeptics” don’t want to be labeled conspiracy theorists yet they seem completely happy to promote things conspiracy theorists say without making any effort to distance themselves from those conspiracy theories.
Another “well respected former”: Robert Mueller.
I am still hoping to be pleasantly surprised by the outcome of Mueller’s investigation. I am pretty sure he is going to nail somebody for something. But I don’t foresee any major figure on the Trump team being convicted of any crime related to the campaign or implication of Trump being involved in anything nefarious. Not that Mueller wouldn’t be happy to nail The Donald. But if he doesn’t have the evidence, I think he will say so and clear the POTUS.
I don’t respect Mueller, because he should not have accepted the job. He is conflicted, or at least the appearance of him being conflicted is enough for him to have let someone else do the job.
Brandon, Steyn’s comment simply paraphrases statements by current UN/IPCC figureheads, and the father of “socialism through climate change fear”, Canadian Maurice Strong. Not verbatim, but close.
Brandon is just mad that his compulsive nitpicking at other blog purveyors is interfering with his duties at his own lonely blog, that is attended by about 5 people, including Brandon. He recently lamented his lack of attention to his own lonely blog:
Brandon: “Hey guys. I’ve been spending way too much time over at Climate Audit”
It’s Steve’s fault. Go over to Brandon’s place, where he explains the problems he is having keeping Steve in line.
The FBI has agreed to provide the House Intelligence Committee with the Trump Dossier-Russia documents that were subpoenaed. The FBI has promised to yield these next week. There might be some big surprises, real big. I hope the committee shares what they learn.
Given the decline in the MSM and the rise in social media, we should all think about where the information we read originates.
Youtube views: Russia Today (RT), 2.1 billion. CNN, 2.0 billion. Fox 0.6 billion
Youtube subscribers: Russia Today (RT), 2.2 million. CNN, 2.4 million. Fox, 0.7 million.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-state-news-outlet-rt-thrives-on-youtube-facebook-1508808937
Facebook and Twitter admit “Russian bots” are picking up stories/propaganda and blowing up their importance vis social media. (See the Cosmic Ping Pong Pizzeria).*
From personal experience researching controversies about the fall of Yanukovych, I can tell you that Russian media paid far more attention than Western media to details of what happened in the Ukraine. None of their stories are behind paywalls.
* Googling produces “Trey Gowdy With More Evidence Against Clinton” produces almost 50 hits with this quote, which date to July of 2017 including some Youtube videos. Now imagine automatically spreading this story via social media.
“The head of the Committee to Convict Clinton – Trey Gowdy had something to say about this. Here is his statement:
“What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, are the 43 so – called ‘destroyed’ Blackberries that the secretary testified under oath had been smashed with hammers as a matter of national security. They were buried in a strongbox near the site of the kill room found at the Chapaquadda Ranch. We also found fake passports and nearly a million dollars in cash, as well as what those in high – level spying or politics call a ‘GO BAG’ complete with keys to unknown vehicles, 4 guns, a few days worth of water and some rations. What we have here is one of probably many such like it around the country and across the world.”
Was there a raid on the Clinton’s house? Did Trey Gowdy make any statement about it?
Now imagine more sophisticated stories that aren’t so easy to see through. And “true” stories citing the extreme views of one expert that have been refuted by other experts. And thank Steve for posting carefully documented stories.
Hillary’s frenetic anti-Trump campaign of these past 8 months can now be explained and put into context:
1. Criminal liabilities under national security law.
2. Criminal liabilities stemming from the Uranium One deal
3.Other liabilities incurred in connection with the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State.
4.The Dirty Dossier and campaign violations connected to that PLUS the Russian connection through Fusion GPS; big potential problems of collusion with Russia.
Her guilt in these affairs must have deranged her. She is looking at year’s of criminal prosecution and imprisonment.
I browsed the Uranium One security filings in Canada (www.sedar.com). Ironically, about 20 years ago, I owned shares in a predecessor company to Uranium One- Southern Cross Resources, the chairman of which (not involved with U One) was a long-time friend. Reverse takeovers are a common listing technique for speculative companies. Uranium One did an RTO on Southern Cross and installed a new board with Telfer et al. The Russians came later. Russian oligarchs have been often been particularly unscrupulous in abuse of securities law in Canada. My younger brother, a lawyer, is presently arguing a class action against one of Russia’s richest oligarchs before the Ontario Securities Commission. Observance of rights of minority shareholders is not exactly a priority for them.
The investigations in the US ought to spend some time figuring out how Uranium One worked as a mining deal, if they want to understand what happened. The Kazakh property seems to be the crown jewel. At a first glance, it looks like Clinton and Giustra got a Kazakh official to transfer the property to them for a fraction of its value. (The official was later sentenced to 14 years in jail for corruption.) A stock register of the company who first got the Kazakh property is what I’d look for first.
The US assets don’t look like they are worth much. Rather than getting embroiled with permission from the US State Department, it would have made more sense for the Russians to dividend the US assets out into a Newco to the non-Russian shareholders and avoid the need for US permissions.
mpainter: “Frank, if you believe that the Ukraine ever was taken seriously as a candidate for admission to the EU, you are deluded.”
Let’s skip the strawmen.
I never said that the Ukraine was taken seriously as a candidate for admission to the EU. I said the EU began in 2009 an initiative (the “Eastern Partnership”) to reach out to Eastern European countries that were now on or near the border of the EU. And I provided a link so anyone could read the objectives of this broad initiative, especially with regard to reducing corruption. This initiative placed no restrictions on the relationship between any of these countries and Russia. (The link also contains a link to the general agreement Yanukovych was expected to sign in Vilnius at the end of Nov 29, 2013. His announcement on Nov 24 that he would not sign triggered the first protests in the Maidan.)
In 1990, I never imagined that countries like Bulgaria would be part of the EU nor Estonia part of NATO. Although EU or NATO membership may be unthinkable today, some dream that the Ukraine eventually join. The worse Putin behaves, the more he will drive Ukraine towards the West. (After Brexit, it appears more likely that the EU will fragment rather than enlarge, but that wasn’t the case in 2009.)
No strawman, Frank, but your own. My point you in fact concede: that the EU never gave serious consideration to admitting the Ukraine as a member. It follows that the purported justification for EuroMaidan was false.
My point still stands: the Ukraine is now worse off than before. Nobody likes it, nobody wants it.
When I first came to this site almost a decade ago, I didn’t expect to discover that Canadian mining engineer was a more credible source than the professors at RC. However, it was trivial to find out that Steve quoted others verbatim and in context, while his opponents distorted what Steve wrote. Please show this site the respect it has earned over a decade (and earn some respect for your views) by quoting what others say and citing sources for claims that aren’t common knowledge.
snip – I wish commenters would observe politeness expectations.
I’m sure that you agree that the situation of the Ukraine is worse than before, Frank. Is it not obvious? No need to respond if you agree.
I’ve done a Twitter thread, giving my impression of Uranium One as a mining deal. Pundits are missing a very big and interesting story because they don’t understand it as a mining deal.
In brief, Kazakhstan had rich state-owned uranium mining properties, then worth more than $1 billion. A state official (Mukhtar Dziakhishev) “sold” them for $100,000 to two offshore private companies (Jeffcott; Widley) controlled by a budding Kazakh oligarch (Mukhtar Ablyazov). Presumably Dziakhiashev and other officials had shares in the offshore companies.
To monetize the embezzled properties, they needed to sell the properties in the West. In 2005, Frank Giustra, soon to become Bill Clinton’s best friend, negotiated a deal in which the two offshore companies sold the offshore companies to his shell company (UrAsia) for installments totalling $350MM for one company and $80MM plus for the other. A big mark-up but still much less than the properties were worth. Not to put too fine a point on it, UrAsia was, in effect, acting as a “fence” to monetize the embezzled properties.
Bill Clinton was instrumental in UrAsia getting the rights to re-sell the uranium properties. Giustra pledged $5 million to Clinton Foundation in July 2005 and got a commitment from Clinton to visit Kazakhstan with him. Negotiations proceeded through the summer and the deal was ready to close. On Sep 2, Giustra and Clinton’s advance man arrived in Kazakhstan for final negotiations. On Sep 5, Bill Clinton arrived and had a fancy dinner with Kazakhstan president, making flowery promises to the president on unrelated topics. Clinton says that he didn’t discuss any mining business. Of course not. That wasn’t why he was there. Clinton left the next day. Two days later, the terms were agreed with final contracts being signed two months later.
A year later, UrAsia did a reverse takeover with Uranium One, a then smallish uranium company, getting 60% of the shares. It was a good deal for both: the Kazakh assets were much better than the prior assets of Uranium One and it laundered UrAsia shares into more legitimate shares. I’ve seen reports that the transaction was valued at $3 billion. I haven’t parsed the numbers, but my guess is that that is the valuation of the combined company, thus valuing UrAsia interest at $1.8 billion. A further big markup. In business terms, most of the company value was in the Kazakh properties, rather than the odds and ends in the US and elsewhere.
The $100MM payment to the Clinton Foundation presumably recognized Clinton’s role in clinching the deal. Arguably, it was their share (or part of their share) in the profits from re-selling the embezzled Kazakh assets. It’s also possible that Clintons held shares presumably through an offshore company (which Giustra could arrange effortlessly).
Uranium One assumed the installment payments to the offshore companies (which were secured by security interests over shares in the companies holding the properties). My guess is that the Giustra companies put in some pump-priming money but flipped the asset before large payments were due.
Uranium One then entered into agreements with legitimate companies e.g. Tokyo Electric to finance completion of the acquisition and mineral development.
In 2008/2009, Dziakhishev was charged with corruption and sentenced to 14 years in prison. (He had visited with Bill Clinton in Chappaqua in 2007). Questions arose in 2009 about the validity of Uranium One’s title to the Kazakh properties, but the Kazakh government decided to leave that stone unturned. It would be interesting to see whether Hillary’s State Dept took a position. Later, Ablyazov was charged with corruption and ended up in the UK, home to many ex-patriate embezzlers of state property.
Russian involvement in Uranium One was subsequent to these adventures. In 2010, they took a 19.95% interest in Uranium One, which had incidental US properties. I’m sure that their primary interest was in the Kazakh properties. If CFIUS consent had been refused, I’m sure that they would have dividended out the US assets into a Newco and bought into the parent in a transaction with no US assets.
Yes, the importance of the U.S. uranium assets that Bill and Hillary sold to the Russkis is being exaggerated for political effect. See the frantic joker Hannity. The U.S. produced 2.5 million tons of uranium last year and 60,000 pounds came from the Uranium One mine Willow Creek. The strategic and national security implications are virtually nil. If we ever determine our national security requires the Willow Creek uranium, we will get it, one way or another.
However, it will be fun to watch Hilly and Billy and their Obama team accomplicestry to slip and slide this yuuuuge scandal.
Forgot the link:
http://www.uranium1.com/our-operations/#kazakhstan
Willow Creek is a nit to Uranium One business.
I certainly agree that the loss of Crimea and civil war in Eastern Ukraine have made the situation worse in Ukraine. However, we don’t know what would have happened if Putin hadn’t sent his soldiers (out-of-uniform) to seize Crimea, and soldiers and massive amount of military equipment to aid the separatists in Eastern Ukraine. YOU should blame PUTIN for these problems – not the protesters in the EuroMaidan. The people of the Ukraine were not given the opportunity to settle their internal disputes by themselves. Russia had recognized Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea (and Eastern Ukraine) with the Budapest Agreement of 1994 AND by confirmed that sovereignty by agreeing to extend the lease on naval facilities in Crimea under Yanukovych.
From what I’ve read, the challenges the Ukrainian government faced from dissent in Eastern Ukraine would have been extremely challenging even without Russian interference. They may have been equally bad in Crimea, but Russia seized it before severe problems developed in Eastern Ukraine. However, these were problems that the Ukrainian people had the right to solve for themselves. (Picture the British interfering in our Civil War and trying to take back the portion of parts of the Oregon territory that were disputed 15 years earlier, but resolved by negotiations. Adolf Hitler started WWII by providing protection for Germans in the Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and finally Poland.)
The real question is whether or not the peaceful portions of the Ukraine are being ruled by a less-corrupt government. Their new system for picking judges appears promising. Another oligarch as President is not. The final story is yet to be written.
That’s pounds, Don, not tons. That figure yields 1250 tons.
I wrote “60,000 pounds”. I know how many tons it is. Can you explain wtf it is you are yammering about?
OK, I see what you mean. I apologize. It was supposed to be 2.5 million pounds. I just saw another source with higher number. In any case, 60,000 pounds is not a significant part of 2.5 million pounds. Would you argue that Willow Creek is vital, or even important, to our national security?
PS: I still don’t see where you got 1250 tons.
Steve: Info on Uranium One is very interesting. I don’t understand two aspects of this deal: 1) What did Bill Clinton contribute that is worth a $100M to contribution to the CGI and possibly more to the Clintons personally? 2) Why is Giustra attracting all this attention to this corrupt transaction by publicly displaying such massive amounts of money. There were a large number of ways this could be done with far less visibility.
Without Clinton, UrAsia can’t get the deal. The uranium properties were worth (say) $1.5 billion. The vendors wanted (say) $430 million. A major uranium company e.g. Cameco would search the title, realize that the properties had been embezzled from the state and wouldn’t deal in them, let alone commit to $430 million. Giustra’s deal (and I don’t know this, but am informed speculating) would be to promise a large payment in installments, with relatively little upfront. In effect, UrAsia had an option on the properties and wanted to flip them to a more senior company, which would then assume the payments. On the other hand, a vendor wants to monetize the property as soon as possible. In most cases, there’s little point in granting an option to a shell company because they are going to have to deal with a more senior company and usually it’s a better idea to deal with the senior company directly, without the middleman.
Giustra needed Clinton to add cachet to UrAsia. The more corrupt the deal, the more value he brought to the party. Giustra could easily have promised him (say) 15% of the take if he met the president of Kazakhstan and the deal got done. He probably figured that a donation to the Clinton Foundation was a slick way of doing so. It’s entirely possible that Clinton was given UrAsia shares in an offshore company that are worth just as much.
In looking at the flip, it looks to me like Giustra and associates made over $1 billion on the deal. It’s possible that they levered all of this with no more than a few tens of million ever invested.
The transaction attracted attention in Canadian financial press in 2009 e.g. Globe and Mail https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/who-sold-key-asset-to-uranium-one/article4274871/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com& when Dziakhishev arrested.
A hundred million or so to secure billions of dollars in profits is not a lot of money to put out. Billy should have asked for more. And the sources of the contributions to the Clinton foundation/slush fund were intended to be kept secret.
://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
“The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.
The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.
Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.
If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction.”
Steve is very correct, the value in the deal was the Kazakh properties. The corruption occurred, before Hillary became SOS. As Steve pointed out the U.S. mines could have been divested to avoid any need for U.S. government approval. Focusing on what went on after 2009 is missing the big crime. The bribery and other chicanery that Rosatom did with U.S. truckers has very likely got nothing to do with the Clintons. They got paid before that.
I haven’t parsed the subsequent events, but corruption in 2005 doesn’t preclude later corruption when Hillary was in State.
Off the top of my head, here’s what I’d look for. After the RTO with Uranium One, Giustra and associates have hundreds of millions of Uranium One shares, worth a lot of money on paper, but it’s not always all that easy to liquidate large positions, especially from control blocs. There’s only so much you can place on the market. Uranium One also needs a lot of cash to make the balloon payments on the Kazakh properties (which remain mortgaged to the oligarch vendors.)
Along come the Russians who have real money and want to get a large minority interest (initially) and eventually the entire company. Russians bought 19.95% in 2010, which seems to have triggered the CFIUS decision in Oct 2010, and moved to 100% in 2013 or 2014. It’s hard to imagine that Giustra didn’t still have a big position even in 2013. Selling to the Russians for cash was a great exit strategy. Cash was hard to find in the mining business at that time.
My point was that the big shocking story about a witness who can testify to an investigation of Russian bribery of trucking company execs concurrent with CFIUS, probably has no relation to the original big crime, which was the theft of billions of dollars of Kazakh uranium mining assets. I doubt the Clintons were involved in the relatively small time racket of trucking bribery. Not that they had become incorruptible.
I believe the CFIUS approval was a foregone conclusion regardless of who was SOS. Obama wanted to kiss Putin’s a$$. What could be the harm in letting him buy a uranium mine, that no matter what happened with U.S.-Russia relations would remain in the United States? We can only guess as to whether Giustra and hillybilly had cashed out of Uranium One by the time the Russians came along. I hope they were still up to their necks in the scam and they get busted for it.
This brings back fond memories. I made a fortune shorting shady Canadian stocks: Bre-X and Sino-Forest. Also dozens of Chinese RTOs listed in the U.S. It is amazing how some very smart people can be so stupid. There were some very big investors in a lot of the hundreds of bad Chicom RTOs. Read up on Sino-Forest. The great genuis John Paulson lost nearly a billion$. What a clown. We shorts called it SeeNo-Forest. They had about 4 freaking trees.
Bre-X was especially amusing. As soon as I heard that their Filipino geologist had allegedly jumped out of a helicopter to commit suicide, I knew it was a scam. I spent four years in the Philippines and learned in about the first two days why Magellan called it Islas de Ladrones. Corrupt from top to bottom.
some of the earliest Climate Audit posts are on Bre-X
Steve McIntyre says:
This is misleading. Kazakhstan had over a dozen uranium deposits, but only three were involved in this. The deposit involving the Jeffcott Group was Kyzylkum. The deposits involving Widely World Wide Inc were Akdala and South Inkai. In regard to this, there are two important issues McIntyre’s description fails to disclose:
1) McIntyre’s claim this property was sold for $100,000 is taken from a source which describes it merely as an allegation, not fact, and he describes that allegation inaccurately. He cited this article on Twitter which states:
In addition to the article stating this as an allegation, not fact, the article discusses only the sale of the Kyzylkum deposit to the Jeffery Group, not the sale of the Akdala and South Inkai deposits to Widely Worldwide Inc. The article also shows the second point McIntyre fails to disclose:
2) The sales in question did not involve the entirety of the deposits involved. As McIntyre’s source indicates, only 30% of the Kyzylkum deposit was involved in this chain of events. That 30% was bought by UrAsia for $75 million. 70% of the Akdala and South Inkai deposits were sold for $325 million.
There’s much more to say about McIntyre’s full comment, but the point is if McIntyre wishes to claims a company was acting as a fence for stolen goods, he should first make sure to get the basics of what happened correct. It’s pointless to discuss specifics of things like whether or not UrAsia paid a fair price when McIntyre fails to disclose key details like the sales being for only part of the uranium deposits he gives values for. Instead, I’ll just point out this remark of his seems strange:
As 40% of the Kyzylkum deposit was bought by a Japanese group of investors, and one of UrAsia’s competitors in its deal was a Chinese group. I can’t see any reason why these sales would have to be done “in the west.” And note:
Is true but fails to point out Ablyazov left the United Kingdom in 2012, three years after he arrived there. It seems strange to me to say someone “ended up” in a country he lived in for only three years when he fled it five years ago. Plus, it seems worth pointing out Ablyazov fled a second country in order to avoid dealing with court rulings stemming from his financial improprieties.
Brandon, first of all, the overall point of my comments about how the Kazakh deal worked are unaffected by your comments on several details. My observation about the Kazakh deals in the context of US focus on Uranium provide, in my opinion, a worthwhile and novel perspective on the matter from someone who understands mining deals. In your rush to find fault, this is perhaps something that you should notice.
I understand the structure of mining deals and some of the points that you construe as errors are not, though there is no harm in some clarifications. Many mining deals involve joint ventures. I have considerable personal experience in joint ventures and joint venture contracts. An interest in a joint venture is understood in the business as a “mining property” and a 30% joint venture interest can be worth hundreds of millions of dollars in a valuable mine. Your observation that UrAsia acquired a 30% interest in a given property as opposed to a 100% interest as some sort of gotcha simply shows that you’ve never done a mining deal. I was trying to show the structure of the transaction.
You say that the source only says that the property (i.e the joint venture interest) was “allegedly” sold for $100K and that this is not a fact. I’m trying to explain the structure of the scam and it is clear to readers that I’m speculating on what happened, but speculating based on knowledge of mining deals. Whether the property was sold for $200K is irrelevant. The point is that the property was sold for a minute fraction of its actual value. You say that it is “pointless” to speculate on whether fair market value was paid without precise description of details. Doing a full valuation is a big and complicated job and far outside the scope of a comment at a blog.
I’m explaining to readers what I think happened. This for sure: given the subsequent events, it is inconceivable that the transfer of the properties from the state-owned company to the offshore companies was done at fair market value.
Nor would any reputable senior mining company believe for a minute that the offshore companies had acquired title to the mining properties in a legitimate manner.
As to your point about the “West”, it’s a lot easier to monetize properties through deals with the “West”. I suppose that I might have said the “West or Japan”.
Brandon is a fastidious, obsessive nitpicker. Sometimes his nitpicking turns up something of value, like a little nugget of gold, or a little diamond. But all too often Brandon’s nitpicking just turns up nit. Anyway, Steve has graciously admitted that Japan is a major country and he shouldn’t have left it out, as it is essential to the narrative.
Are you happy, Brandon? (He won’t answer. I slapped him around really hard, years ago.)
Steve McIntyre:
You all but labeleed companies criminal fences of stolen property. That is a very serious claim. Given that, it is reasonable for people to expect you to hold high standards in your description of events. Given a central aspect of your narrative was based upon the valuation of property sold, your inaccurate descriptions of things is highly relevant. If UrAsia actually paid a fair market price for what it purchased, the narrative of your comment would be affected in a non-trivial way.
The allegation was that one deposit was sold for $100,000. You repeated this claim, without any caveat about this merely being an allegation and falsely claimed it was for all three deposits. That is wrong. You defend it by saying it doesn’t matter if the actual number was $200,000, but what if the actual number was $50 million? Surely that would make a difference.
What if in reality there was no money exchanged at all? What if it was part of some bartered deal? What if some money exchanged hands but other property or other equity was traded as well? Are you saying we know none of that happened? The source you cited doesn’t say so. Maybe you know of some other source which does. If so, you should discuss what it says. instead of saying it doesn’t matter if the actual number was $100,000 or $200,000. That does nothing to address the legitimate concern that this allegation might be false in its entire substance. Kazakhstan is filled with corruption so I wouldn’t be surprised if this did happen, but at the same time, I wouldn’t be surprised if its NSC distorted facts while helping take down a person who fell out of political favor. (President Nazarbayev has certainly done worse, and Dzhakishev’s connection to Ablyazov cost him a great deal of political capital.)
Creating then attacking straw men rather than dealing with what people say, to the point you don’t even acknowledge the basic error that the allegation you relied on involved only one of the three deposits in question, is pointless. Nobody who was unconvinced beforehand will be convinced by it. Anyone who was already convinced won’t care. All it does is waste your time, waste my time and waste the time of anyone who might bother to read this.
Brandon, your comments are foolish. My opinion, based on a knowledge of mining deals, is that there is zero chance that the anonymous offshore companies paid fair market value or anything approaching it. Everything in this deal says to me that the properties were embezzled from the state, with the profits from the embezzlement amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, probably over $1 billion, with some of the profits accruing to the Kazakhs, some to the UrAsia group who re-sold the properties to Uranium One, with $100-140 million (whatever the exact number) being the take of the Clinton Foundation. In effect, the contribution to the Clinton Foundation was at the expense of the poor people of Kazakhstan.
Let me try again to explain the unseemliness of the Kazakh deal.
Let’s suppose that the Brooklyn Bridge was sold to an anonymous offshore company by the Port Authority of New York (or whoever owns the bridge) for $100,000, with title duly registered in the land title office. The owner of the offshore company is unknown, but believed to be local politicians. The offshore company now wants to sell the bridge for hundreds of millions of dollars. How are they going to do that? Is any reputable developer going to give them hundreds of millions of dollars? Of course not. They are going to be rightfully suspicious that the registration arose from sort of scam. They won’t bother trying to figure out the scam, but they’ll steer clear of it.
Mining properties are properties as well. There’s no legitimate way that a couple of anonymous offshore companies legitimately acquired the Kazakh uranium properties that were later sold by Bill Clinton’s client to Uranium One. I don’t claim to know the precise details of the scam – I’ve speculated on what happened, but everything about the deal says scam to me.
My first sentence in that comment should have said McINtyre “labeled a company a criminal fence” as UrAsia was the company in question. I got it right later in the comment, but the malformed blockquote tags hides that a bit. That’s twice today I’ve messed up blockquote tags. It looks like I need to get a new keyboard as I’m noticing a number of keys on this one are sticking.
Frank, here are some incontrovertible facts:
1). The EuroMaidan was a coup that unconstitutionally overthrew a popularly elected government.
2) Presidential elections were scheduled for March, 2015, a year and one month after the unconstitutional coup. The usurpers had only a year to wait to remove Yanukovitch at the polls. Or, they could have impeached Yanukovitch through constitutional parliamentary procedures. They did neither.
3) You agree that the Ukraine is worse off following EuroMaidan.
Surely you agree that EuroMaidan prompted the secession of the Crimea and the Donbass, this by a popular movement of those provinces irregardless of whatever role of Putin, howsoevermuch you might deprecate his character.
Ergo, EuroMaidan was a blunder by the Obama administration who gave support and impetus to the coup and it can truly be said that Obama bears responsibility for the present sad state of affairs in the Ukraine.
What’s most interesting about all that Brandon, is that you need a new keyboard.
Steve McIntyre:
That’s nice. I’m sure if somebody came along and told you, “My opinion, based on a knowledge of paleoclimatology, is there is zero chance…” you would not feel obliged to refrain from criticizing things they said are true without having evidentiary support. I am also sure if their response amounted to nothing more than, “Your comments are foolish, Steve. I know what I am talking about,” you would respond with a not insignificant amount of snark.
Maybe your beliefs on this issue are correct, but as long as you can’t do anything to show they are and you adamantly refuse to correct indisputable errors people point out, it is perfectly reasonable for people to say people should be skeptical of your narrative.
Seriously Steve, what is going on? Twice now you’ve refused to admit the supposed $100,000 payment was for only one of the properties in question while you claimed it was for all of them. Everything in the history of this site shows you say settling small issues of dispute is an essential part of how you think disagreements should be handled. Why refuse to do it now?
You’ve done this on every disagreement we’ve had in the last month. You’ve done everything you can to avoid admitting even the smallest of mistakes. It’s silly. If anyone else did it, you’d complain. You’d say this is what you’d expect from the Team.
Brandon, it’s sometimes hard to see your point because you include far too much superfluous editorializing, casting aspersions on motives, which often makes it hard to locate your original point. In this particular case, I did not present my argument as a parsing of financial records, but as a sketch of how I believed that the Kazakh scam was structured. I stand by this.
In an effort to figure out what was on your mind, I traced back the $100,000 to my original expression which was as follows:
This is a sketch of the deal, not a financial analysis. When I wrote this, it was not my understanding that ALL Kazakhstan uranium properties had been exfiltrated to Jeffcott and Widley, only that Jeffcott and Widley had acquired “rich state-owned uranium mining properties, then worth more than $1 billion”. The estimate of value is based on the subsequent history, not a property valuation which I don’t have the time, energy, interest or data to carry out – as was clear in the context. As I said to you before, in making this statement, I did not turn my mind to the percentage interest in each property which was conveyed to Jeffcott and Widley, which is not material to the point in the paragraph. It would not have done any harm to have noted at the time that the term “mining properties” includes joint venture interests for people unfamiliar with the business, but I didn’t think of this at the time. It doesnt affect the point. The value of the properties to Giustra’s group was shown in the subsequent deal with Uranium One and subsequent market valuation of Uranium One. I take your point about details, but don’t wish to spend a whole lot of time if you dont mind.
On the point of whether the (alleged) $100,000 was for both sets of properties (Jeffcott and Widley) or just one set of properties, I agree that it was alleged in respect of one set of properties, rather than both. This is totally irrelevant to the point in the paragraph, but I do try to be accurate in details and concede that $100K was alleged in respect of one set of properties. If you deduce from this that the other offshore company might have paid hundreds of millions for the other set of properties, you’re deluded. The other deal would have been pretty much the same – a token payment for the transfer of valuable assets.
In my opinion, the Jeffcott properties and Widley properties were embezzled from state-owned Kazakh companies for a microscopic fraction of their true value. No reasonable buyer of these properties would be unaware of this and, in my opinion, can fairly be characterized as a “fence” of embezzled properties. Accordingly, the profits of the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton’s associates in this deal can fairly be described as money that ought to be the property of Kazakhstan.
Wikileaks contains an excellent description of the Dzakhishev-Ablyazov deals by the US embassy on June 3, 2009, shortly after Dzakhishev was arrested.
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09ASTANA943_a.html
It’s pretty much what I’d surmised.
Steve McIntyre:
Brandon, the idea that the uranium properties were not embezzled is implausible. Mukhtar Ablyazov, who is convincingly identified as the principal behind the offshore companies, is a serial embezzler, now an international fugitive. The Kazakh frauds associated with Ablyazov are among the largest in Europe in recent years. No reason to believe that, in this one case, he paid fair market value. As to the supposed non-monetary contributions being of equivalent value, Giustra’s group did not have any technology to contribute. fw
Though, now that you mention it, there was one non-monetary benefit associated with Giustra’s deal though not one that gets anyone off the hook. When Bill Clinton visited Kazakhstan as part of Giustra’s cast, he “issued a statement praising the Kazakh leader despite his questionable, antidemocratic record. The Times called the praise a “propaganda coup” for Nazarbayev.” http://www.businessinsider.com/nyt-reporter-clinton-lied-about-meeting-2015-4
So to that extent, Clinton provided a benefit to the local dictator, thereby contributing to the deal closing – a deal which resulted in the acquisition of the embezzled property by UrAsia with payments to Ablyazov et al, but not to the Kazakh state from whom the properties had been embezzled. I don’t understand why you’re defending this.
CNN should be stripped of FCC licenses:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/26/politics/john-podesta-debbie-wasserman-schultz-trump-dossier/index.html
“The White House has seized on the funding disclosures to discredit the ongoing investigations into potential collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. While the most salacious allegations in the dossier haven’t been verified, its broad assertion that Russia waged a campaign to interfere in the election is now accepted as fact by the US intelligence community.
In recent closed-door interviews with the Senate intelligence committee, Podesta and Wasserman Schultz said they did not know who had funded Fusion GPS, the intelligence firm that hired British Intelligence Officer Christopher Steele to compile the dossier on Trump, the sources said.”
They are really low life scum and a danger to our democracy. The most salacious allegations in the dossier might not be true, but the less salacious and the rest of it is now accepted as fact by the U.S intel community. Lock them up!
That’s not all:
“Podesta was asked in his September interview whether the Clinton campaign had a contractual agreement with Fusion GPS, and he said he was not aware of one, according to one of the sources. Sitting next to Podesta during the interview: his attorney Marc Elias, who worked for the law firm that hired Fusion GPS to continue research on Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC, multiple sources said. Elias was only there in his capacity as Podesta’s attorney and not as a witness.”
Podesta’s lawyer, sitting next to him, was the actual clown who, with DNC and Hillary Campaign Comm. money, hired Fusion to make up the dodgy dossier. He didn’t just work for the firm that hired Fusion, he was the very clown what hired them. And Podesta didn’t have a clue about what was being done with millions of dollars of campaign fund by his very own personal clown lawyer. Beautiful.
CNN can be seen to be “economical” with Truth by all: the FBI and the CIA on the other hand can hide and apparently have something to hide: Trump releases some, but not all, JFK assassination records http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/26/politics/jfk-assassination-files-classified-document-release-donald-trump/index.html
Most probably they should and could have halted Kennedy’s assassination by simply arresting Oswald before the shot was fired, but they didn’t…
“Nothing to hide” argument? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument
“All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm#Analysis
Or, don’t become what you fight during your struggle.
They definitely could have prevented that JFK assassination by simply arresting Oswald, before he done it. Just as Lincoln would still be alive, if J W Booth had simply been jailed or simply got struck by lightning, before he did the dirty deed. I bet simple pre-emptive arrests could have stopped most assassinations and all sorts of other dastardly crimes. It’s too bad they didn’t arrest that fool in Las Vegas, before he massacred all those people. I bet some day they will wake up and start rounding up folks, before they do the horrible things they have planned.
Oswald was on their radar and had spoken frequently about getting rid of JFK (& blowing up the FBI building in Dallas). A US Marine sharp shooter who defected to the USSR 4 years before: how many cases like that were walking around the USA in 1963?
What are the FBI and CIA hiding? Their own hide….?
Cite some evidence to support your claims of threats against Kennedy that authorities knew about. Your claim that he threatened to blow up the FBI building is bogus. Oswald was on the radar because he was an idiot. A lot of people are on the radar. The authorities need a reason other than being on the radar to lock somebody up.
I don’t imagine that anybody currently at the FBI or the CIA have anything to hide regarding the JFK thing. The guys that could have had anything to worry about are long gone.
LA Times Op-Ed Oct 28 2017: The latest JFK documents still don’t show a Russian conspiracy http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-reston-jfk-archive-20171028-story.html
Now that is something the CIA & FBI would not have hidden in the secret files then or now.
My guess is that they themselves had Oswald on their payroll to spy on the Russians/Cubans but he went AWOL in Dallas: embarrassing stuff.
Anthony, there is a great clue that surfaced after the Warren Commission Report regarding Oswald’s motive. During his time in the Dallas jail he was allowed to make two phone calls, one was known to be to a lawyer named Apt that he never reached. The other call was unknown until a jail operator came forward with the story years later. She was young and working night shift and arrived early and learned from her superior, whom she was relieving, that two men were going to come up to the operator’s room a few minutes before they would get a request to make a long distance call for Oswald. The men came in and went through to an adjoining room and waited. The call from Oswald came and he supplied two phone numbers. The young operator took down the numbers on their standard form pad as well as the older operator on hers and took it into the adjoining room to share with the men. When she came back she patched in her cord and told Oswald that the numbers were no answering. She lied. The two men left and the young girl placed her note in her purse as a souvenir.
About 6 years later the young woman’s story got told where it reached a local sheriff who apparently contacted the FBI, who never contacted the woman but instead created a false affidavit telling her story. This file was later found by the Congressional committees investigating the CIA in the 1970s where the girl was contacted and found out there was a file. They got her confirmation of the exact story as well as confirmation from the day operator who had talked to the men. The younger girl still had the original souvenir note as well.
The two numbers were looked up and found to each belong to a different John Hurt of Raleigh, North Carolina. The first one was a young unemployed auto mechanic. The second one had worked in military intelligence at one point then got a debilitating degenerative disease. He worked for the NC DMV for few year before getting fired. Hurt had claimed people were making him do things he didn’t want to do. By 1963 Hurt has both physically crippled in all limbs and had been treated for alcoholism and mental disorder. Hurt’s military service files were “destroyed” but one Veterans Administration file was found contained Hurt’s separation quality record. Hurt had served as an investigator of accidents and sabotage. He had also at one point attended an eight week military intelligence training school and took a war intelligence course.
Speculating why Oswald was calling this person I would say it may have been someone Oswald trained with in the mid 1950s in NC. Self-confessed CIA Op forty pilot Tosh Plumlee said he ran into Oswald during his training in NC in the mid 1950s. Or, Oswald’s handler, who is alleged to have been David Atlee Philips, gave him a useless contact name in NC to call in case he got into trouble. Maybe Oswald called information asking for the number of John Hurt; two were listed and he did not know which one, so he memorized both.
The two men who instructed the operator to lie to Oswald were not recognized by her as staff of the Dallas police. They were never identified. It is hard to speculate on their purpose, even a dirty one, besides that somebody ordered Oswald not to be allowed to communicate to anyone outside. But why? He would be silenced permanently with a bullet to the gut the next morning.
Steve, how about Southwestern Gold?
RE: Steve McIntyre
Posted Oct 28, 2017 at 9:06 AM | Permalink
“some of the earliest Climate Audit posts are on Bre-X”
Am I correct in recalling no one went to jail? I also seem to recall the main principle died somewhere in the Caribbean, having lived out a free and luxurious life long after the scam unraveled. Apparently the saying, “Crime doesn’t pay.” needs to be updated.
Matthew McConaughey’s newish movie, Gold, is based loosely on Bre-X. David Walsh, the promoter of Bre-X, seems to have been deceived by associates and didn’t end up with much. The Phillipine geologist who ran the salting operation is believed to have been thrown out of an airplane. John Felderhof, the Canadian geologist who is believed to have masterminded the salting, claimed innocence and, as I recall, was never convicted of anything. It’s believed that he made tens of millions, but not hundreds of millions. Less than, for example, the Clinton Foundation take from the Kazakh/Uranium One deal.
Most of the profits/losses on Bre-X were by people who were uninvolved, with the take by the (crooked) house being a relatively small proportion of the total market cap.
Not to pick the nit, but the Filipino geologist Mike de Guzman was officially determined to have committed suicide, by jumping out of a Alouette helicopter chartered by Bre-X. My friends in the Philippines and myself doubt this story. It is out of character for a fun loving Filipino who has stolen about $5 million to kill himself. Far more likely, he paid the flight crew to dump a body in the jungle, which by the time it had been found was in no shape to make a positive ID, and he hid out most likely in the Southern islands of the Philippines. Or, he was tossed out of the chopper.
There is another interesting back story here and that was Barrack Gold’s push to take over the Bre-X sites. From what I recall Peter Munk released the hounds by calling in favours from current/former Board members that included former US president Bush and former Canadian PM Mulroney (among others) to persuade the then government to allow Barrack to just take over. And then suddenly they decided to call in the dogs and were no longer as interested in the site stating at one point they no longer believed the ‘find’ was quite what it was being made out to be. What and when did they know what others should have?
you’ve got the story mixed up. I forget the exact details, but the Indonesian government cancelled Bre-X’s licences for no valid reason and forced them into doing a JV with a senior company. Freeport McMoran did the JV and re-drilled the zone which was uniformly barren. The jig was then up. I’d have to check back to see whether Barrick instigated this episode. It was an interesting intrigue, but tangential to the main fraud.
RE: “you’ve got the story mixed up.”
Perhaps I have. I do remember a Rick Mercer rant about the Barrack take-over attempt where the narrative was about an innocent little guy getting the shaft by the evil powers that be. However, Rick never did a follow-up piece later when, well . . . you know. The innocent little guy won.
RE: ” It’s believed that he made tens of millions, but not hundreds of millions. Less than, for example, the Clinton Foundation take from the Kazakh/Uranium One deal.”
Yeah, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money . . . sigh . . . I wish my high school guidance councilor was a little more imaginative when it came to career choices.
RE: Steve McIntyre “you’ve got the story mixed up.”
RE: barn E. rubble “Perhaps I have.”
Or perhaps I haven’t. The Indonesian government (as corrupt as it was) did indeed step in. This is from the Canadian Encyclopedia.
“Two days previous, Barrick Gold Corp. of Toronto – for months the leading contender in the Busang stakes – was shut down by Mohamad (Bob) Hasan, the timber tycoon and Suharto confidant who had wedged his way into the Busang story not just as a participant, but rather as the deal-maker. “He was upset that Barrick came in and made Indonesia look like a Third World country,” Felderhof says of Hasan.
The whole article is here and covers how Indo. gov. corruption (IE: Mohamad Hasan) brought about the Freeport-McMoRan deal and Barrick’s ouster as senior partner:
<>
Apparently De Guzman, Felderhoff and Walsh sold a portion of their options for around $100 million which is, as Steve says, tens of millions not 100’s of millions. But then again, not chump change either.
There were also big losers:
“Among the major losers were three Canadian public sector organizations: The Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board (loss of $45 million), the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, the Quebec Public Sector Pension fund ($70 million), and the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan ($100 million).”
<>
my point on the losses is not what you think and is a bit subtle. The losses in the collapse of the stock were much larger than the take of the insiders e.g. the pension plan losses that you mention. The difference is due to profits by non-insiders which were very large: people (with no knowledge of the scam) who bought early in the bubble and sold at a profit. One of my friends made over $1 million in Bre-X for a fund that he was managing. He’d bought at recommendation of a broker; he then went to a Bre-X presentation and really disliked the quality of people and was going to sell but was ahead and let it ride; eventually sold at a very large profit. My analogy is that the non-insiders speculating on the stock were, in effect, betting heads-or-tails on a rigged coin, but neither of them knew which way the coin was rigged. One won, one lost, but the money changed hands between legitimate people. The “house take” by the crooked insiders wasn’t the entire $2 billion (or whatever the market cap was, I forget).
I think that the pension funds might have had a case against the stock exchanges. They were index funds and bought Bre-X when it was listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. The ore reserve report (by reputable firm) which was accepted by the TSE was not written for the purpose of a TSE listing and contained important caveats and qualifications which should have prevented its use by the TSE for listing.
I looked at this case from the perspective of wondering about what due diligence by brokers, analysts and consultants would have picked up the fraud earlier – the form of fraud, in my opinion, being one that should have been picked up earlier. Shame on the fraudsters, but also shame on due diligence failure.
This case was very fresh in my mind when I encountered Mann’s work: not in the sense of originally suspecting anything particularly untoward, but in the sense that adequate due diligence for one purpose e.g. publication in a journal may not be adequate due diligence for relying on results for enormous social policy.
RE: ” – the form of fraud, in my opinion, being one that should have been picked up earlier.”
It wasn’t just your opinion but many, altho most in hind sight. And from what I’ve read it doesn’t seem like it was that sophisticated a fraud that it couldn’t have – or better – as you say, should have been picked up earlier. Salting core samples must be almost as old as gold mining. I mean from filing his wedding ring (at least one of them) for salting and then using local panned gold for salting, no one wondered why the samples were different? I read how De Guzman explained the rounded bits (from panned gold) but even if his explanation was sound it didn’t match the first ‘filed’ samples. Greed seemed to have overwhelmed due diligence.
There’s more to this story than one movie can cover. It would make a great Netflix miniseries.
there was one Bre-X telltale that should have been picked up by analysts. All mining properties have “core racks” where splits of core are stored for geological reference. There weren’t any at BreX. They told analysts that the gold occurred in very fine particles and they needed the entire core to get enough sample. Total BS. No-see-um gold scams were something that one sees from time to time in gold business. If I’d known there was no core, I’d have shorted it. Ludicrous that gold analysts didn’t draw a line in the sand.
Mpainter writes: “Frank, here are some incontrovertible facts:”
“1). The EuroMaidan was a coup that unconstitutionally overthrew a popularly elected government.” “, they could have impeached Yanukovitch through constitutional parliamentary procedures. They did neither.”
The Ukrainian Parliament did not properly follow the long legal process for impeaching Yanukovych, which wasn’t created to deal with the flight of a President abandoned by his party, the local police and some military leaders. Even though the vote was unanimous and included many from Yanukovych’s own party, it fell 2% short of number that would have been needed for final impeachment.
However, “a constitution is not a suicide pact”. See Wikipedia article with this name. Thomas Jefferson, for example, wrote:
“A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”
I think the actions of the Ukrainian Parliament were reasonably consistent with Jefferson’s “highest duties of good citizens”.
I disagree with characterizing this as a “coup”. There was no armed mob of citizens threatening Parliament when they voted. The police were nowhere to be seen and many government buildings were occupied by protesters, but there was no violence. No supporters of Yanukovych were imprisoned.
2) mpainter: “Presidential elections were scheduled for March, 2015, a year and one month after the unconstitutional coup. The usurpers had only a year to wait to remove Yanukovitch at the polls.”
Absurd. Yanukovych’s inappropriately violent attempts to deal with demonstrators had killed dozens. The police had deserted. A high army official(s) had resigned rather than follow orders. The Prime Minister had resigned. Rumors of Russian intervention were rampant. And your solution is to wait a year for elections?
3) “You agree that the Ukraine is worse off following EuroMaidan.”
Yes, because of Putin’s actions and Yanukovych’s actions and desertion.
mpainter: “Surely you agree that EuroMaidan prompted the secession of the Crimea and the Donbass, this by a popular movement of those provinces irregardless of whatever role of Putin, howsoevermuch you might deprecate his character.”
I would never characterize Putin’s invasion of Crimea as a “secession”. An election held two weeks later at voting booths guarded by Putin’s soldiers without international supervision and offering only a choice of independence or annexation by Russia does not qualify it as “secession”.
Demonstrations (like those in the EuroMaidan) began in Eastern Ukraine and some local officials refused to recognize the authority of the central government. Unfortunately – unlike the EuroMaidan an arms depot was raided and ARMED mobs seized control of government buildings. I don’t know much was guided, led by Russian special forces, or armed by Russia. This isn’t secession, it is civil war. Secession is what you may get if peace talks end a civil war.
mpainter “Ergo, EuroMaidan was a blunder by the Obama administration who gave support and impetus to the coup and it can truly be said that Obama bears responsibility for the present sad state of affairs in the Ukraine.”
You can read about the official international reaction to the EuroMaidan at Wikipedia. In the early days, John Kerry did encourage Yanukowych to accept the European agreement as he had earlier planned to do. Everyone warned Yanukowych to avoid the violence that brought the crisis to a head. Perhaps you are aware of some irresponsible statements by US officials (besides the stolen call by VIctoria Nuland which emerged after? the crisis.) Personally, I don’t think the demonstrators gave a d*** about what Obama or Putin said or didn’t say. They didn’t listen to the Ukrainian politicians opposing Yanukovych who were formally there allies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_Euromaidan
Frank, more facts for you:
Yanukovitch did not leave the Ukraine for several weeks after the February 22 coup when parliament unconstitutionally declared him deposed. He left for Kharkov and from there to the Crimea (which had not yet seceded).
Your arguments amount to this: there was no coup but the plotters succeeded in ousting Yanukovitch who was a reprobate and therefore the coup was justified.
Your arguments are also semantic as you apparently have your own personal definition of what a coup is.
I urge you to consult your dictionary.
I am glad you refer to the notion of regular elections as a means of resolution as “absurd”. This exposes your position very well, thank you.
mpainter: “More facts for you:”
No links, just your word, which has been demonstrated to be wrong numerous time by citations to reasonable sources. Why bother the make it up, when you should have learned that strategy doesn’t work here?
mpainter: “Yanukovitch did not leave the Ukraine for several weeks after the February 22 coup when parliament unconstitutionally declared him deposed. He left for Kharkov and from there to the Crimea (which had not yet seceded).
Yanukovych gave a press conference in Rostov-on-Don (ie Russia) on 28 February where he claimed to still be the rightful President of Ukraine and “stressed that military action in this situation is unacceptable” and said he wanted Crimea to remain part of Ukraine!!! He also called on Putin for help in restoring order to Ukraine. That was the same day that the Russian invasion of Crimea began.
There may be some controversy about where he was between his last public appearance in Kharkov on 2/22 and his public appearance in Russia in 2/28:
According to Wikipedia: On 26 February Russian media company RBC reported[207] Yanukovich’s presence in Moscow. According to RBC sources, Yanukovich arrived at the Radisson Royal Hotel, Moscow (often referred by its former name as “Hotel Ukraine”) on the night of 25 February 2014.”
According to US News, the acting Ukrainian Interior Minister said on 2/25, that Yanukovych had abandoned his security detail, tried and failed to fly out of Donetsk (to Russia?), and then went to Crimea.
When interviewed for a Russian documentary a year later, Putin said he arranged for a Russian OPERATION to rescue Yanukovych night he was deposed by Parliament Feb 22-23 and planned the seizure of Crimea the same night. This story makes the most sense.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26386946
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/24/ukrainian-president-flees-for-pro-russia-region
https://www.voanews.com/a/putin-yanukovych-crimea/2673093.html
Two weeks after the annexation of Crimea on 3/18/14, Yanukovych gave a interview with AP in Rostov-on-Don where he said:
“he was “wrong” to have invited Russian troops into Crimea and vowed to try to persuade Russia to return the coveted Black Sea peninsula… Crimea is a tragedy, a major tragedy.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/ousted-ukrainian-president-viktor-yanukovych-i-was-wrong-to-invite-russia-into-crimea-20140402-zqpxa.html
He is now reportedly a “guest” at a Russian state dacha outside Moscow.
mpainter: “Your arguments amount to this: there was no coup but the plotters succeeded in ousting Yanukovitch who was a reprobate and therefore the coup was justified.”
The “plotters” – whoever they were – didn’t oust Yanukovych. Parliament did so – unanimously. The leader of his party (the Party of Regions) in Parliament spoke out against him. EVERY member of his party present voted to remove him. The police abandoned him. They didn’t want to be responsible for killing more of their fellow citizens.
mpainter: “I am glad you refer to the notion of regular elections as a means of resolution as “absurd”. This exposes your position very well, thank you.
Thanks for taking my words out of context. Clearly I meant that it was absurd to wait for a year for elections to resolve the problems that faced the Ukraine on 2/22/14, particularly the absence of their President. Yanukovych had already agreed to move up elections in the 2/21 compromise, but he had refused to set a date.
Frank, Wikipedia:
“On 21 February 2014, Yanukovych claimed that, after lengthy discussions, he had reached an agreement with the opposition.[13] Later that day, however, he left the capital for a speaking engagement in Kharkiv, coming under fire as he left Kiev, and travelling next to Crimea, and eventually to exile in southern Russia.”[14]
I consider this more reliable than your profusion of contradictory news accounts. Argue with this, call this untruthful. You need to apologize, by the way.
Also, the coup was not directed at popularly elected Yanukovitch, but at the minorities who elected him, mainly Russian but also Polish, Czech, Romanian, others. These understood what was happening and there were anti-Maidan protesters in many places in the eastern and southern Ukraine. EuroMaidan drove the Crimea and the Donbass out of the Ukraine. Interestingly, you condemn these protests while upholding the EuroMaidan streetfighters.
The issue of Yanukovitch’s fitness for office was one to be determined at the polls. The EuroMaidan thugs made sure that this did not happen. And you approve.
Rather, …the coup was not directed at _only_ Yanukovitch…
It’s a good think that Stalinist KGB dictator Putin was around to save the minorities. If only he would do something about Chicago.
yes, in a federation, the government cannot be settled by violent demonstrations in one region. In Canada, if demonstrations by right-wing factions from English-speaking Canada drove out a French-speaking Prime Minister with support in Quebec and regions (Maritimes), Quebec simply would not accept legitimacy of new government and would secede.
Steve wrote: “yes, in a federation, the government cannot be settled by violent demonstrations in one region. In Canada, if demonstrations by right-wing factions from English-speaking Canada drove out a French-speaking Prime Minister with support in Quebec and regions (Maritimes), Quebec simply would not accept legitimacy of new government and would secede.”
Fortunately, Canada has a parliamentary of government. Your French-speakng Prime Minister would likely lose a no-confidence vote. The demonstrators wouldn’t have driven out your Prime Minister; the representatives would have. To some extent, that is what happened in Ukraine. Only a President needs to be impeached, a vote of confidence won’t do.
mpainter: “Also, the coup was not directed at popularly elected Yanukovitch, but at the minorities who elected him, mainly Russian but also Polish, Czech, Romanian, others.”
Putin would like everyone to believe that the issue was Ukrainians vs Russians and other minorities, because that divisiveness weakened the Ukraine. Putin also wants to make the EuroMaidan into a Russia vs the US issue, because it makes him popular at home and justifies the significant loss of life of out-of-uniform Russian soldiers and volunteers being recruited to fight in Eastern Ukraine and the economic pain of sanctions.
The dispute was about the future of the Ukraine: Would they follow their neighbor Poland’s path to less corruption, more prosperity and stable democracy. Or would the end up like Belarus, with an authoritarian dictator who has ruled for a quarter century and half the per capita income. The demonstrators were angered by Yanukovych’s last minute abandonment of an agreement with the EU. The death of more than 100 demonstrators caused all of Yanukovych’s support to disappear.
Frank, do you deny that the US/EU and Russia were adversaries in the Ukraine? Putin did not invent this adversary, as you claim.
I agree domestic consequences may have weighed on Putin in his consideration of the situation.
IMO, the corruption in the Ukraine is beyond cure. In such a place, you don’t achieve high office if you are clean. The calculus of human affairs.
Frank, as long as you pretend that EuroMaidan was a legitimate and constitutional transfer of power, you will be uncomprehending of that affair.
Ukrainian corruption is exemplified by the parliamentary release of Tymoshenko from prison. President Yushenko attended her trial and gave testimony; he described the trial as a regular and fair judicial proceeding. Not a good start for cleaning up corruption.
I guess that we’ll learn more about Ukrainian corruption in the Paul Manafort arrest. Manafort’s charges include FARA charges. There’s some irony here. As I understand it, Manafort’s primary work was advising Yanukovych in respect to Ukraine elections, with his then associates, John and Tony Podesta, handling the US lobbying. Presumably the Podestas would have been liable for FARA registration, but the Democrat lawyers on the Mueller inquisition didn’t see fit to charge them. (Brandon, I’m just chatting here; I don’t have footnotes for the above comments).
From Wikipedia:
Yushchenko testified against his former ally Yulia Tymoshenko during her trial over a 2009 natural gas treaty she brokered with Russia; a trial he called “a normal judicial process”.[72][73]
Steve, it remains to be seen if Mueller will pursue the Podesta brothers with the same vigor and diligence that he applied against Manafort. If he breaks into their home in the early am, we can conclude that he is seriously investigating them.
Mueller is under attack for his conflicts, also his criminal leaks of grand jury proceedings. Maybe this is a concerted effort to force his resignation. We shall see. Everything appears to be in a flux.
Manafort knew squat about Ukrainian elections. He was a bag man for Stalinist KGB Dictator Putin and Putin’s stooge Yanukovych. He just took the money for spreading Russian propaganda and influencing U.S. political figures and laundered it for the the Podesta types. You people don’t really have a clue about what going on. Obviously, the Stalinist KBG dictator Putin’s propaganda is working very well on some of you.
mpainter writes: “President Yushenko attended [Tymoshenko’s] trial and gave testimony; he described the trial as a regular and fair judicial proceeding.
His testimony might mean something if Yushchenko and Tymoshenko were close political allies. They were not. They headed separate political blocks in Parliament. Tymoshenko was the passionate reformer and Ukrainian nationalist. Yushchenko was the ultimate political insider and coalition builder, who was willing to work almost any other group and disinclined to pursue oligarch corruption. They were allied during the Orange Revolution, but not at other times. By 2009, Tymoshenko had become more popular that Yushchenko, and she and Yanukovych were the final two candidates in 2010.
With Yanukovych solidly in power and his pro-Western rival Tymoshenko headed for jail, Yushchenko joined the winning team and testified. There are allegations that he perjured himself when he did so. Furthermore, some think he was responsible for the natural gas crisis in 2009 that Tymoshenko allegedly abused her power when negotiating a solution.
mpainter: “Frank, do you deny that the US/EU and Russia were adversaries in the Ukraine? Putin did not invent this adversary, as you claim.”
The US/EU and Russia were adversaries. The US/EU wanted ANY settlement between the protesters and the Yanukovych government that would end the crisis peacefully. Putin wanted a crisis that he could exploit – and got one.
mpainter: IMO, the corruption in the Ukraine is beyond cure. In such a place, you don’t achieve high office if you are clean. The calculus of human affairs.
And the corruption in Russia or Belarus? At least the government changes hands in the Ukraine every election. Reformers are trying to make things better in Ukraine. There are no reformers in those other countries.
RE: “(Brandon, I’m just chatting here; I don’t have footnotes for the above comments).”
Hah. I get it, but does Brandon?
Not obvious to me that police response was inappropriate to the provocation by Pravy Sektor militias. Would US (or Canadian) police have allowed similarly violent demonstrations. I doubt it.
You don’t really have a clue as to who started the shooting. Do you seriously believe that Putin didn’t send in people to help his puppet Yanukovych deal with the threat of a popular uprising? Now call it a coup and pretend Putin is not a bloody dictator.
Steve: What kind of demonstrations are tolerable and which aren’t? Which category does EuroMaidan belong to? It is hard to be sure. In 2011, Occupy Wall Street occupied Zuccotti Park in NYC for almost two months before it was cleared by the police. Mayor Daley was severely criticized for his provocative statement and the brutality of the Chicago Police during the 1968 Democratic convention. The Baltimore authorities were criticized from not preventing violence at the 2016 Freddie Gray riots. Tahrir Square was occupied for most of a month without being cleared. Tiananmen Square was brutally cleared after two months of sometimes violent occupation.
My choice of the words “inappropriately violent” were based on two lines of evidence: 1) The ebook I recommended above from the Kiev Post. 2) The fact that the his party in Parliament deserted Yanukovych and the security forces deserted him. A high army official had resigned. As I noted in another comment, there is nothing illogical about disagreeing with my assessment of the responsibility for the violence. We don’t have definite evidence.
This is really not that hard. The violent resistance came at the end of a series of events that started as student activist demonstrations, against a crooked authoritarian regime headed by a Stalinist KGB Putin puppet, that were violently attacked by police. Police violence increased in intensity and deadliness as a relatively small number of protesters grew into a mass uprising. If you want to find a comparison in America, go back the the Revolution.
From the perspective of the Ukrainian rebels:
Of course, you find a gazillion videos and other reports from the Stalinist KGB dictator Putin perspective.
Frank:
It’s telling how Steve McIntyre insists on calling what happened in Ukraine a coup yet insists on saying Crimea seceded. The Crimean parliament declared Crimea had seceded after the Russian military took control of its government buildings and held parliament captive until they voted.
It’s difficult for me to understand how what happened in Ukraine could be a coup yet what happened in Crimea could be a secession. Thus far, McIntyre has managed to avoid this contradiction by simply refusing to acknowledge what the Russian military did.
Brandon, the term “coup” is understood to refer to the overthrow of the government of a sovereign state; secession refers to a portion of a state that withdraws or breaks away from the state by the will of its populace. The Crimea was a breakaway province that voted to secede. I hope that helps your understanding.
Concerning the troops that guarded strategic sites in the Ukraine, these assured that the EuroMaidan streetfighters would not be able to seize those sites and terrorize the general populace. Such seizures took place throughout the Ukraine, particularly in cities that had substantial Russian minorities. The EuroMaidan coup was very well organized and planned. I have no doubt that if Russian minorities in such places were given the opportunity, these too would vote to secede or perhaps organize resistance against the EuroMaidan usurpation. The reason that the usurpation failed in the Crimea was due to the Russian majority which welcomed the opportunity to leave the Ukraine.
Concerning the fears of the Crimeans toward the EuroMaidan streetfighters, these were not baseless. We have as an illustration the Odessa massacre of EuroMaidan protesters as an example of what Crimeans could expect if the EuroMaidan thuggery was allowed to establish itself there.
Correction, above should read …troops that guarded strategic sites in the _Crimea_…(not Ukraine).
These troops were claimed by some to be Russian, although their fatigues were not Russian army fatigues nor did they wear any identifying insignia. Crimean authorities claim that these were volunteers, not regular Russian army troops. It is not unlikely that these came from Russian military bases in the Crimea. Thus this would not be an invasion. I imagine that, as a cover, these troops were put on furlough for these guard duties.
The claims of “invasion” by Putin overlooks these details. These claims also ignore the fact that many in the Crimea requested Russian protection against the EuroMaidan streetfighters and neo-n*zis.
mpainter: “Concerning the fears of the Crimeans toward the EuroMaidan streetfighters, these were not baseless. We have as an illustration the Odessa massacre of EuroMaidan protesters as an example of what Crimeans could expect if the EuroMaidan thuggery was allowed to establish itself there.
The “Odessa massacre” (a violent clash between protesters supporting and opposing the post-Maidan government) occurred on May 2, 2014, about six weeks AFTER the referendum and annexation of Crimea.
Please stop making things up.
Painter is subject to hallucinations. Funny how the hallucinations always support his biased view of whatever.
I made nothing up, that is the second time you have used that falsehood against me and you need to apologize for both instances.
I was well aware of the time frame.
The Odessa massacre illustrates the murderous intent of the EuroMaidan streetfighters which murderous intent would have been directed at Crimeans had they not seceded. My comment is specific and clear. Your resort to the tactics that low types invariably use: invention and false attribution. I know your type well. Please stop your insults.
Concerning the Odessa massacre, anti-Maidan demonstrators were peacefully encamped when they were attacked by of mob of neonatsi types. They fled to the refuge of a nearby building where they were blockaded while the building was set on fire by the murderous EuroMaidan thugs. All inside the building perished.
My above response meant for Frank, not don.
Let’s just get this straight, Brandon. Stalinist KGB dictator Putin was minding his own business, as usual, when he awoke one morning to find that Ukrainian neo-N@zis were staging a coup against his puppet President Yanukovych. I mean, what else could he do but to send in the GRU and FSB to supervise and aid the Ukrainian security goons to put down the coup. He didn’t send enough goons and the Ukrainian security forces decided not help in another Russian slaughter of Ukrainians and the Neo-N@zis won. Not applying enough force was a mistake that Stalinist KGB Putin wouldn’t make in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. And if a civilian airliner gets shot down, blame it on the neo-N@zis. No one will do anything about it.
“Tell Vlad I am just a wussyboy and he is the Patron Saint of Russians EVERYWHERE. Wink wink.”
Maybe this is why painter is a fan of Stalinist KGB dictator Putin’s puppet Yanukovych:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonleopold/fbi-probe-of-paul-manafort-focuses-on-13-suspicious-wire?utm_term=.svx86x1P0#.nxQJp7aGq
Boy, I hope this doesn’t tarnish painter’s hero Trump, too much.
I too believed the news accounts about EuroMaidan and how that nasty Yanukovitch got his just deserts by being chased into the embrace of the nasty Putin. When the Trump-Putin collusion myth machine got cranked up, I researched on my own the EuroMaidan events, ignoring the MSM and relying on my own understanding to draw conclusions. It was a revelation. I discovered that I had been misled as to what actually went on.
I feel slightly amused at those who accept EuroMaidan in the guise it’s dressed up in, complete with lipstick and pancake makeup.
You just told on yourself. When Trump got linked with Putin, you decided to do a 180 and take Putin’s side and become a blind slobbering apologist for his actions. Are you seriously going to maintain that Putin is an innocent lamb, who never interferes in the domestic affairs of the countries that were formerly under Soviet domination? Yanukovych was and is a Putin puppet. Ukrainians do not want to be ruled by a Putin puppet.
The dumbest thing that Trump ever did in his life was to give the appearance that he thought Putin is a good guy and potentially a reliable partner, in whatever. Maybe the second dumbest thing he has done could be his appointment of Manafort as his campaign manager. The Donald and consequently the country has been suffering from these foolish mistakes.
Don, you make things up and attribute your inventions to me. Your last comment is Hodge podge of untruths and you are getting tiresome. In Lansing they say “You can take the boy out of Detroit, but you can’t take Detroit out of the boy”. So true.
I have no sympathy for Manafort or Flynn either and I regard both of these swamp crawlers as mistakes by Trump, as he probably does himself. That said, I believe that Mueller will hang a phoney, trumped-up indictment on either if he cannot find a genuine crime to tag on them.
You outed yourself. Can’t take it back now.
I suspect that Flynn and Manafort have committed some offenses related to getting paid large sums of money by shady foreign entities; in Manafort’s case it’s your pal Putin puppet Yanukovych, and in Flynn’s case the Turkish dictator. If that be the case, Mueller doesn’t have to trump anything up.
I predict that some money laundering, or tax evasion, or failure to register as a foreign agent shenanigans will come to light and that will be about it. If that’s how it turns out and no evidence is found against Trump and his people, I predict that Mueller will not just make sh!t up, but will close the investigation and move on.
And there is another fork that Mueller could take. He is apparently investigating Podesta and his network of scheister cronies, which includes Perkins Coie. P&C got a lot of money from the DNC and the hilly campaign for “legal services”. We know now that some of that money was for things other than legal services. That is violation of FEC campaign rules and could open up a big can of worms. Some of that money was very likely payment for P&C work on filing campaign activities reports to the FEC. Obviously some false. P&C got a lot of splainin to do. A full audit of what P&C did with all that money could turn up a lot of crimes. It’s going to be fun. The worm has turned. You should stop expending efforts to shamelessly exonerate KGB Putin and move on to something more productive. Did you do any work for the Trump campaign?
PS: Ha ha. I forgot to mention that Podesta and his accomplice Manafort could be sharing a jail cell.
Here is the story on the Podesta-Manafort mob activities:
http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/2017/10/25/former-podesta-group-executive-says-firm-peddled-russian-oligarchs-all-over-dc-with-paul-manafort-video/#sthash.voy9Zbwy.dpbs
“Nit scribbles”, Churchill’s expression for those types who immersed themselves in minutiae but could not or would not grasp the larger aspects of an issue.
Frank, Wikipedia:
“On 21 February 2014, Yanukovych claimed that, after lengthy discussions, he had reached an agreement with the opposition.[13] Later that day, however, he left the capital for a speaking engagement in Kharkiv, coming under fire as he left Kiev, and travelling next to Crimea, and eventually to exile in southern Russia.”[14]
I consider this more reliable than your profusion of contradictory news accounts. Argue with this, call this untruthful. You need to apologize, by the way.
Your pal Putin’s puppet Yanukovych “claimed” he came under fire. Where is the actual evidence he actually came under fire? You owe Frank an apology.
You are about a blinded by bias as anyone I have ever seen.
See how montfort responds to an excerpt from Wikipedia. But this is what we have come to expect from him.
We see how good your research and reading comprehension skills are. You quoted from a wiki article that you have not even read, beyond the spot where you found something to bolster your dumb freaking argument. You only believe what you want to believe. Go on and grasp at any straw to defend Putin and his little puppet. Pathetic.
Do you get it yet, painter? You should keep quiet now.
And look who has come to argue with it and call it untruthful. None other than Mr. Manners himself.
Who needs to apologize? You, or Frank?
If you are going to cite wikipedia to prove something, you should at least read your citation first. And you should read wikipedia on wikipedia’s reliability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source
“This page in a nutshell: Do not use a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article, even when describing Wikipedia.”
Can you understand that, paint? Wikipedia does not consider wikipedia a reliable source. But you do. What a character.
The only thing that you have proven with all your comments is that you only believe what you want to believe.
You missed the citations, montfort, #13 = Guardian, #14 = BBC
Sputtering incomprehension hardly becomes you
This is what painter said to Frank:
“Frank, more facts for you:
Yanukovitch did not leave the Ukraine for several weeks after the February 22 coup when parliament unconstitutionally declared him deposed. He left for Kharkov and from there to the Crimea (which had not yet seceded).”
Above painter quotes this wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych
If painter had actually read the article he would have found this:
“Yanukovych left Kiev during the night of 21 February 2014. Assisted by Russian officials[201] he moved initially to Kharkiv with bodyguards and personal effects.[202][b] According to then governor of Kharkiv Oblast, Mykhailo Dobkin, Yanukovych had intended to make his stay in Kharkiv look like “just another presidential inspection tour” and according to Dobkin, “was desperate to make it look like he wasn’t running away”.[204] Yanukovych asked Dobkin to “pick out a few factories for me to visit”; the director of state-owned industrial giant Turboatom[205] declined even to take his call (according to Dobkin).[204] Dobkin met Yanukovych at Kharkiv International Airport after midnight.[204] According to Dobkin at that time Yanukovych “thought this was a temporary difficulty” since he believed that the 21 February deal he had signed with opposition leaders could still provide for a graceful departure of his power later in the year.[204] Dobkin’s impression of Yanukovych (during this meeting) was “a guy on another planet”.[204]
In his press conference in Rostov-on-Don on 28 February Yanukovych claimed that at the time he did not “flee anywhere”, but that his car was shot at “by automatic rifles” as he left Kiev for Kharkiv “to meet the representatives of local parties” and he was then forced to move around Ukraine amid fears for the safety of himself and his family.[14] “When we arrived in Kharkiv, on the early morning of 22 February, the security service started to receive information that radical groups were arriving in Kharkiv.”[206]
On 26 February Russian media company RBC reported[207] Yanukovich’s presence in Moscow. According to RBC sources, Yanukovich arrived at the Radisson Royal Hotel, Moscow (often referred by its former name as “Hotel Ukraine”) on the night of 25 February 2014. Then he moved to the Barvikha Sanatorium, the health resort of the President of Russia in Moscow Oblast. RosBusinessConsulting also reported sightings of Viktor Pshonka, a former Prosecutor General of Ukraine in the hall of Radisson Royal Hotel.[207] The Press Secretary of the Department that manages Barvikha Sanatorium denied the report, stating that he had no information of Yanukovich settled in Barvikha Sanatorium.[207][208] According to Russian politician Oleg Mitvol, Yanukovych bought a house in Barvikha for $52 million on 26 February 2014.[209]”
His hero Putin’s puppet Yanukovych had already bought a house in Russia by feb. 26. Bwaahhaaa.
mpainter: You told us that Yanukovych remained in the Crimea for several weeks after being deposed. Given his press conference in Rostov-on-Don on 2/28 (arranged to provide some justification for the invasion of Crimea), I believe YOU need to apologize for misinforming us – again.
However, there were different public accounts of Yanukowych’s whereabouts on during the FIVE days after he left Kharkov and appeared in Rostov-on-Don, so I provided a full account of what one might have read in the press. (It turns out the Ukrainian leaders in Kiev were misinformed about his presence in Crimea.)
in his interview with Oliver Stone, you can hear Yanukovych himself tell us want what happened on February 22. He tells us the same story as Putin; he was rescued by a Russian operation. He will also tell you that he flew by helicopter from Kiev to Kharkov. It was his security detail (not Yanukowych himself) following by car that was allegedly shot at.
He will also tell you that his failure to sign an agreement with the EU was the cause of the Euro-Maidan demonstrations and that the violence that occurred there inflamed the demonstrators and led to his downfall. He, of course, believes that the violence was sparked by Neo-Naz1s, claims he didn’t order security forces to try to intimidate the demonstrators with violence, and believed that the EU agreement (which had already taken four years to negotiate) suddenly needed to be more favorable to Ukraine.
Everyone recognizes that Yanukovych had the power to replace the leaders of his security forces if they weren’t following his orders; making him responsible for their excessive violence. In Parliament, his party and others deserted him because of this violence and his failure to find a compromise that would end the violence.
The EuroMaidan – the events that happened in Kiev – were all about canceling the EU agreement and the violence that followed. The crises in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine involved other issues – especially Ukrainian nationalism and Putin’s stated goal to re-unite Russian speakers intermixed with non-Russians inside a new Russian empire.
This is how a man handles his business, painter:
“Don Monfort
Posted Oct 27, 2017 at 6:54 PM | Permalink
OK, I see what you mean. I apologize. It was supposed to be 2.5 million pounds. I just saw another source with higher number. In any case, 60,000 pounds is not a significant part of 2.5 million pounds. Would you argue that Willow Creek is vital, or even important, to our national security?”
You made a cryptic comment about pounds and I went back to see wtf you were talking about. I discovered I had mistakenly written “tons” instead of pounds. What did I immediately do when I quickly verified I had mad a mistake? Did I argue about it? Try to deflect? Did I lie about it? NO, I apologized.
Well, the only thing wrong with the Guardian and BBC citations is that they don’t support what you think they support. Try actually reading something, before you shoot your mouth off. The Guardian article is from Feb 21, so it could not have any information that supports your foolish claim “Yanukovitch did not leave the Ukraine for several weeks after the February 22 coup…”
And the BBC article is from Feb. 28, and it is about Yanukovych’s presser IN RUSSIA on that very day, which is obviously not weeks after the “coup”. So even a fool should now be compelled to admit that you are wrong repeatedly and you don’t know sh!t from Shinola. And you owe Frank and myself an apology. And you should just shut up now. By the way the BBC article has photos of what they describe as Russian naval flag carrying troops engaged in the invasion of Ukrainian Crimea. Probably Marine Spetsnaz.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/ukraine-crisis-president-claims-deal-with-opposition-after-77-killed-in-kiev
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26386946
I won’t waste another second of my time having any lopsided discussion with a character who is intellectually challenged, lazy and can’t see straight.
Well, well, don montfort verifies that Yanukovitch did not leave the Ukraine for days (not weeks) after the parliament unconstitutionally declared him deposed for “deserting his post”. The egregious Frank claimed that he had left the Ukraine before that parliamentary diktat but that is another falsehood by Frank. Proven false by don.
The February 22 parliamentary diktat was the first of a plethora of such unconstitutional diktats by parliament. This plethora of unconstitutional diktats is what frank and don claim was a legitimate and constitutional transfer of power, legitimate because Putin is a terrible fellow.
You are clearly either very disingenuous, or very delusional.
Frank said about Yanukovych’s whaerabouts:
“There may be some controversy about where he was between his last public appearance in Kharkov on 2/22 and his public appearance in Russia in 2/28:
According to Wikipedia: On 26 February Russian media company RBC reported[207] Yanukovich’s presence in Moscow. According to RBC sources, Yanukovich arrived at the Radisson Royal Hotel, Moscow (often referred by its former name as “Hotel Ukraine”) on the night of 25 February 2014.”
According to US News, the acting Ukrainian Interior Minister said on 2/25, that Yanukovych had abandoned his security detail, tried and failed to fly out of Donetsk (to Russia?), and then went to Crimea.
When interviewed for a Russian documentary a year later, Putin said he arranged for a Russian OPERATION to rescue Yanukovych night he was deposed by Parliament Feb 22-23 and planned the seizure of Crimea the same night. This story makes the most sense.”
You foolishly replied:
mpainter
Posted Oct 30, 2017 at 8:33 AM | Permalink
Frank, Wikipedia:
“On 21 February 2014, Yanukovych claimed that, after lengthy discussions, he had reached an agreement with the opposition.[13] Later that day, however, he left the capital for a speaking engagement in Kharkiv, coming under fire as he left Kiev, and travelling next to Crimea, and eventually to exile in southern Russia.”[14]
I consider this more reliable than your profusion of contradictory news accounts. Argue with this, call this untruthful. You need to apologize, by the way.”
Your own citation proves that you are wrong. Yet your persist. Very, very pathetic.
PS:You also said this, which is what Frank was challenging:
“Frank, more facts for you:
Yanukovitch did not leave the Ukraine for several weeks after the February 22 coup when parliament unconstitutionally declared him deposed. He left for Kharkov and from there to the Crimea (which had not yet seceded).”
Clearly, Frank was correct and you are either very disingenuous, or very delusional.
One week or two, my point stands. I am content that others can see what you two are about when they read the thread.
Your point is BS. You are just repeating KGB Putin propaganda, which you admittedly did not believe, until Trump made the blunder of helping the hillarybots hang Putin around his neck. Then you did a 180. Now you are a shameless Putin apologist. You are deluding yourself. It’s really pathetic.
You likewise depend on invention and false attribution (as well fusilades of insults). However, don’t bother apologize, I don’t require apologies from those I feel contempt for.
Well, I once wrote “tons” instead of pounds. I admitted my mistake and apologized for it. I am a man. You are pathetic.
Those who object to the EuroMaidan “revolution” can sensibly argue – if they want – that the Neo-Naz1s among the demonstrators deliberately provoked the security forces to violence to create martyrs for the cause. They can speculate – if they want – that Neo-Naz1s occasionally killed or mauled a few demonstrators when the security forces were restrained, or that they kidnapped a few injured demonstrators from hospitals and tortured them to death, making it appear as if the security forces were responsible for these outrages. They can assert that these actions were directed by right-wing politicians. These possibilities haven’t been properly investigated, which suggests me that some powerful right-wing politicians fear what might be discovered. See the link below.
http://euromaidanpress.com/2015/12/01/ukrainian-society-presents-demands-to-president-prime-minister-and-co/
However, it is idiocy to assert that the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians began coming to Euromaidan for any reason besides the last minute cancellation of the EU agreement. They hoped this agreement would bring a less corrupt, more prosperous future. The violence that inflamed the demonstrators was blamed on Yanukovych and caused his allies (especially among security forces) to desert him and the unanimous vote to remove him from office. Yanukovych himself admits this.
There were other complications OUTSIDE of Kiev, but they didn’t change the essential nature of the EuroMaidan protests. Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine were deeply concerned that they COULD BE harmed by excessive Ukrainian nationalism under a new government as some point in the future. Yanukovych was the favored candidate of the areas of Ukraine with the most Russian speakers. The history of the ownership of Crimea was complicated. Only a slim majority had approved of Ukraine (which included Crimea at that time) leaving the USSR in 1992. Worst of all, Putin seeks to reunite as much of the former Russian empire as possible and Ukraine is the #1 target.
The history of the Nazi influence on Ukrainian nationalists is extremely troubling – but they have caused only a tiny fraction of the horrors perpetrated by the Russian rules of Ukraine. History suggests that Russian-speaking Ukrainians have more to fear from Russian autocrats in Moscow than Ukrainian nationalists in Kiev. Putin’s propaganda machine exists to obscure this history.
some of the autocrats in Moscow were from Ukraine.
Did Ukraine suffer more than Russians under Soviet rule? My understanding is that suffering and oppression was widespread.
At the end of the day, the Russians extracted themselves from Soviet rule and discontinued the Soviet Union.
As I look at events more, Russian people were not well served by form of dismantling of state companies, which ended up being acquired by oligarchs for a song. It is my understanding that they sought advice from US on this, especially from Harvard economists, whose advice was disastrous.
You are right, Steve. Everyone knows those zany Harvard economists advised the sale of state enterprises to oligarchs for a song. The naive Russians would have never thought of that kind of corruption on their own. Babes in the woods.
Your thinking on this subject is bizarre. Ukrainians shouldn’t be mad, because Stalin killed a lot of people who weren’t Ukrainians. Hey, there were a lot of captive nations under the Soviets and the Czars before them. It’s not like they were only picking on the Ukrops. So it’s all good. Let bygones be bygones. They should have been perfectly happy under the puppet of Stalinist KGB dictator Putin. Anyway, Ukraine belongs to the Russians. Historical precedent. It’s just those troublesome Ukrop neo-N@zis causing all the trouble.
Steve, don’t you realize that the state companies were bankrupt and so was the Soviet Union? And that Russians are freaking corrupt from way back. It’s crazy to blame Harvard economists for the failure of communism and the avarice of Russian oligarchs. Read Animal Farm. It’s all in there. And no mention of Harvard economists.
The man principally blamed for the 1932-33 Ukrainian famine was Lazar Kaganovitch, a Ukrainian Jew, a Bolshevik, and a loyal lieutenant of Stalin. Policies that he enforced were said to have caused famine in the Ukraine, in Kazakhstan, in the Caucasus, and in Russia in such places as the lower Volga region.
The Ukraine may have suffered most. Blaming Russia for this disaster seems inappropriate, but the Ukraine has seen fit to officially rule it genocide.
Blaming Russia for deliberately starving Ukraine “seems inappropriate”? You want to blame it on a Ukrainian Jew. Russia ruled the Soviet Union. Ukraine didn’t freely associate with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was forced on the Ukrainians. And when they put up resistance to Stalin’s madness they were crushed. It was genocide. Period. WTF is wrong with you?
I can’t take any more of this dumb crap.
Wikipedia: On 13 January 2010, Kiev Appellate Court posthumously found Stalin, Kaganovich and other Soviet Communist Party functionaries guilty of genocide against Ukrainians during the Holodomor famine.[75]
=== ==== ======
Now who can argue that? Well, dictionaries, for example. Also scholars; there is a contrary point view.
The death toll of Ukrainians from the German invasion of WW II is put at 5-8 million. For some reason the Kiev Appellate Court has not seen fit to declare H!tler and his crew guilty of genocide, just the Russians. Might have something to do with the fact that Yanukovitch was a candidate for president in the 2010 elections. So much for the Ukraine.
Don’s vision is understandably handicapped by his past vs the USSR, like Nethanyahu is vs Iran.
Meanwhile the world has changed: Putin today is small fry compared to Xi. The house of Saud wrecked much more havoc than the ayatollahs: all vehicle terrorists in the West were Sunnis.
Wikipedia: As a child, Mikhail Gorbachev, born into a mixed Russian-Ukrainian family, experienced the famine in Stavropol, Russia. He recalled in a memoir that “In that terrible year [in 1933] nearly half the population of my native village, Privolnoye, starved to death, including two sisters and one brother of my father.”[83]
===== ============
This shows that the famine was just as severe in parts of Russia. This indicates that the famine was not a genocide directed against the Ukraine but a failure of Soviet policy.
1933, as I recall, was a Dust Bowl year in North America.
There was a disastrous production shortfall in the Soviet Union in 1932-33. This could be attributed to the failure of collectivization but this could not be admitted to. The shortfall was blamed on “kulaks” , peasants who resisted collectivization and were accused of “hoarding”. Their harvests were confiscated and they were left to starve. This occurred throughout the Soviet Union, not just the Ukraine. Those who blame Russians for the holodomor ignore this. Their desire is to justify the bigotry of Ukrainians. Stalin was a Georgian, of course.
mpainter: The man principally blamed for the 1932-33 Ukrainian famine was Lazar Kaganovitch, a Ukrainian Jew, a Bolshevik, and a loyal lieutenant of Stalin. Policies that he enforced were said to have caused famine in the Ukraine, in Kazakhstan, in the Caucasus, and in Russia in such places as the lower Volga region.
The Ukraine may have suffered most. Blaming Russia for this disaster seems inappropriate, but the Ukraine has seen fit to officially rule it genocide.
Who would you blame? The treaty of Brest-Livstok made the Ukraine effectively independent (those the Germans expected it to become their protectorate). Bolshevik Russia recognized their independence briefly. The White Russians controlled Ukraine for awhile. Later a Polish-Ukrainian coalition fought against the Red Army. The Poles, Finns, Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians gained their independence from the former Russian empire, but not Ukraine. Ukraine was incorporated into the USSR by means of military force. A decade later, the USSR produced the famine. I repeat, who would you blame?
“The death toll of Ukrainians from the German invasion of WW II is put at 5-8 million.” “For some reason the Kiev Appellate Court has not seen fit to declare H!tler and his crew guilty of genocide, just the Russians.”
That issue was dealt with at the Nuremberg trials. If you aren’t aware, those trials disclosed in writing that Hilter planned to use Ukrainian agriculture to feed Germany – with the expectation of starving tens of millions of millions of Ukrainians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan
So what? Today the Germans despise their Nazi and Communist pasts. If you visit Berlin, you will find numerous monuments to the folly of the German people and the ease with which they were captured by totalitarian leaders. On the other hand, Putin is promoting the glories of both the Czarist and Communist Russian Empires and how the Russians have been mistreated by the West after the Cold War. Just as Hilter did after WWI.
Wikipedia:
In an August 1942 conversation, Stalin gave Churchill his estimates of the number of “kulaks” who were repressed for resisting collectivisation as 10 million, in all of the Soviet Union, rather than only in Ukraine. When using this number, Stalin implied that it included not only those who lost their lives, but also those who were forcibly deported.[72][73]
===== ===== =====
Stalin refers matter of factly to his policy that was enforced throughout the entire Soviet Union.
Bears repeating that there are types who refuse to acknowledge that Stalin’s policies were enforced throughout the entire Soviet Union.
Continuing this thought: Today the Germans despise their Nazi and Communist pasts. If you visit Berlin, you will find numerous monuments to the folly of the German people and the ease with which they were captured by totalitarian leaders. On the other hand, Putin is promoting the glories of both the Czarist and Communist Russian Empires and how the Russians have been mistreated by the West after the Cold War. Just as Hilter did after WWI.
In today’s world with the ease with which propaganda is being spread via social media and with Putin’s billions to fund corruption, isn’t it obvious that Russian nationalism is a much greater threat than Ukrainian nationalism tinged with Naz1sm?
And of course, Stalin’s policies exacerbated the age old animosity of Ukrainians against Russians. Ukraine was never an independent nation, except for the brief episodes due to war in the twentieth century. Interestingly, the word ukraine translates as “borderlands”. People of the Ukraine referred to themselves as “Ruthenians” until the end of the nineteenth century. “Ruthenia” is a Latinized version of “Russia”. But this usage was replaced by Ukrainian as a result of rising Ukraine ethnocentricity and this is the root of the whole issue: an ethnocentric bigotry directed at the Russian minorities that are regarded as intruders.
Some interesting news on Ukraine and NATO http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/457887.html
It turns out that there is a Hungarian-language minority in Ukraine and that it is adversely impacted by Ukrainian laws/bills/policies threatening language minorities. (I’ve previously commented, based on Canadian analogy of Quebec, on real sensitivity of language minorities in respect to Russian language minority in Ukraine.) HEre’s text:
The Holomodor denying Stalinist KGB dictator Putinski apologists are probably right. The Ukrainians are notorious whiners.
Wikipedia:
According to the 2001 census, 77% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language, 11.4% – Crimean Tatar, and 10.1% – Ukrainian.[16] Of the Ukrainians in Crimea, 40% gave Ukrainian as their native language, with 60% identifying as ethnic Ukrainians while giving Russian as their primary language.
==== ==== ====
These figures show why over 70% of Crimeans voted for Yanukovitch in 2010 and why they voted overwhelmingly to secede in 2014.
Isn’t French the only official language in Quebec, Steve? Do the English speakers in Quebec feel oppressed? The Ukrainians, strangely enough, want Ukrainian to be the official language of Ukraine. They aren’t trying to stamp out other languages.
https://www.unian.info/politics/2117496-parliament-gives-the-thumbs-up-for-education-reform-in-ukraine.html
“Students belonging to the national minorities of Ukraine are guaranteed the right to study in municipal institutions with the use of the language of a respective national minority along with the state language. This right shall be fulfilled through classes (groups) with instruction in the language of the corresponding national minority.”
Strangely enough, the one official language in Hungary is Hungarian.
Don, I’m not trying to argue about what’s right or wrong about language minorities, but to use Quebec to illustrate how such rights are insisted on. There are two official languages in Canada: English and French. As I said before, if a maidan in Ottawa resulted in government being overthrown, such that the post-overthrow government passed a bill establishing English as a single national language, Quebec would secede faster than you can blink an eye, even if, genuflecting to Brandon here, the governor-general did not sign the bill into law. Enough damage would be done by the bill to destabilize the politics.
It seems to me that there’s a deeply felt anti-Russian attitude in western and central Ukraine (Lviv etc) which is reflected in attitudes towards language rights of the Russian language minority. Again, I’m not moralizing on whether this is right or wrong, merely commenting on how it plays out. If there was a correspondingly strong anti-French/anti-France attitude in English Canada, it would make the Canadian federation unsustainable.
From a Canadian perspective, where we’re used to secession votes, the divisions in Ukraine seem unsustainable to me. Not because I support or don’t support Russia, but because the concept of Ukraine (fostered in Galicia and western Ukraine) seems to be built in some measure on Russia-hate, making it very unwelcoming for eastern Ukraine.
the link is dated 10/28/2017: from Steve’s link:
In addition, Hungary is concerned that “the Ukrainian parliament’s agenda includes bills on language and citizenship that threaten Zakarpattia’s Hungarian community.”
#### #####=
Truth is that nobody really wants the Ukraine. Or likes them, except for those who are paid to.
That is the dumbest thing you have said, so far. Nobody likes Ukraine. On the other hand, Stalinist KGB dictator Putinski is well loved, despite that Russian Buk vs. civilian airliner thing and the invasions of his neighbor’s countries. You are really amusing. And pathetic.
There are two official languages in Canada, except for Quebec. They have one official language and it ain’t English. The rest of Canada accommodates Quebec, but Quebec does not reciprocate. You don’t seem to begrudge them their single official language.
Ukraine has just had their country invaded and large parts of it taken over by the Russians. And it’s not like this hasn’t happened before. Is it surprising that they would want the Russians that are still in what is left of Ukraine to freaking assimilate a little bit? They are not taking the Russian language away from anybody. And it is ludicrous to suggest that this is making Eastern Ukraine unwelcome. Eastern Ukraine is lost to the Neo-Soviet Union. Gone. Finished. They are trying to preserve the rest of Ukraine. Why don’t you give them a break and stop all the neo-N@zi Russia hating BS?
The Court of Appeals correctly blamed “Stalin, Kaganovitch, and other Soviet functionaries” for the famine in the Ukraine. The “others” would of course be the high officials of the Ukraine who were responsible for enforcing Stalin’s policies. It is doubtful that this policy fits the definition of “genocide” since there was a real famine, that is, a shortfall in food production that was felt over the entire Soviet Union (see memoir of Gorbachev, above)
FWIW, Kaganovitch was Ukrainian.
I remember discussing this with an economics lecturer in an MBA class, back in the day. Part of the thinking apparently was that in the universe of economists, theft doesn’t really exist exist as an important factor. In a deregulated market, the assets would soon find their way into the hands of whoever could maximize their productivity, even if along the way they passed through not-so-clean hands. The most important thing was to make it all happen quickly. Kleptocracy wasn’t something that happened in a real, deregulated world. Mind boggling.
My point was entirely different. I’m mostly not very interested in theoretical economics, though I could have ended up as that sort of academic. I’ve never encountered a business situation in which theoretical economics provided any guidance. Real problems are complicated and interesting in an entirely different way.
My point on Bre-X was narrow and limited. If you and I are betting on a coin that Don Montford is flipping, the coin has two heads but neither of us knows which: I submit that a bet between you and I is fair even though the coin is crooked. Each of us has an exactly fair chance.
96+% or so of the Bre-X stock was held by non-insiders. Third parties made 96% of $3 billion on the way up and lost $3 billion on the way down.
mpainter, perhaps because there is not really any dispute that the Nazi’s were indeed genocidal against a number of different populations, but not, I think, specifically against the Ukrainians who they probably regarded essentially as just another sort of Russian. Whereas in parts of the old USSR Stalin is still seen as an admirable strongman leader. But not, mind you, in the non-Russian parts where non-Russians survive.
Oddly enough there was a proposal or theory if you like that suggested had Hitler Not been so insanely ignorant of Eastern european politics he could quite probably have assembled a coalition that would have rolled over the Soviets reasonably quickly. In 1941 none of the more eastern blocks of the USSR were particularly fond of Stalin and the Russians (even if Stalin himself was Georgian) and if Hitler had been prepared to treat the various Ukrainians, White Russians, Bylorussians and others with sufficient tact and diplomacy they would quite probably happily fought against Stalin as long as they thought the Germans might (a) win, and (b) leave them sufficiently alone afterwards. Of course that’s a very hypothetical proposition, almost certainly Hitler was incapable of such behaviour based on his general philosophy, character, and outlook. But very briefly the eastern Russian sub-states sort of welcomed the Germans, but were very quickly disabused of their hopes.
Hi Ed, I agree that H!tler might have forged an anti-Soviet coalition. If he had attempted this, history would be vastly different.
Steve asks: “Did Ukraine suffer more than Russians under Soviet rule? My understanding is that suffering and oppression was widespread.”
The forced collectivization of agriculture under Stalin was particularly brutal in the Ukraine. So was the civil war between the fall of the czar and the establishment of the USSR. The Crimean Tartars (10 million?) were forcibly resettled after the USSR recaptured Crimea during WWII. Others were displaced after the Crimean War in the 1850’s.
Holding any empire together usually causes more pain for the subject peoples than their dominators, especially empires with brutal authoritarian rulers. The Vietnamese, Tibetians, and Uyghurs didn’t (and still don’t) like being part of the Chinese Empire.
Steve wrote: “As I look at events more, Russian people were not well served by form of dismantling of state companies, which ended up being acquired by oligarchs for a song. It is my understanding that they sought advice from US on this, especially from Harvard economists, whose advice was disastrous.”
There clearly was a scandal associated with a few Harvard economists giving advice to Russia. Perhaps they supported corruption that would keep Yeltsin in office to prevent the return of the Communists. Whether they (or Russian officials in charge) deserve most of the blame for the rise of Russian oligarchs probably isn’t known.
http://janinewedel.info/harvard_cronycapitalismWSJ.html
I think the constant bombardment of propaganda from the Holomodor denying Stalinist KGB Putin-Russia apologists is getting to you, Frank. Russia has been a corrupt kleptocracy in one form or another from the beginning of time. Most recently the feudal Czarist system, followed by the feudal Animal Farm system, followed by post-Soviet crookery unhindered by any pretense of adherence to Marxist ideology.
The Harvard egghead economists did not teach the Russkis how to steal. After they learned how easy it was in an environment where there was no real democracy and rule of law, a few of them got down in the mud with the Russkis. And it is not surprising they got away with it. Same thing happens all over the world. Aid is squandered on corrupt third world sh!tholes and the corruption rubs off on the aid administrators. I could testify in court to several cases, if anybody was interested.
Corruption is not a Russian monopoly: I remember hearing about West German farmers asking US tanks to drive through their fields in order to make better money from governmental compensation for accidental crop destruction during NATO exercises West of the Iron Curtain: most tank commanders happily obliged.
Thanks for that kneejerk apology for neo-Soviet Russian corruption, non-entity. I am really sorry I said that Russia had a monopoly on corruption. Well, I didn’t say anything like that, but I know how committed you are to defending Stalinist KGB dictator Putinski. The story that you heard about the tanks running around and massive farmer corruption in Germany must be true. I have heard from old German soldiers I worked with at NATO HQ that they are practicing for another invasion of France and Poland. They figure it’s OK, now that Stalinist KGB dictator Putinski has gotten away with invading neighbors.
Don wrote: “I think the constant bombardment of propaganda from the Holomodor denying Stalinist KGB Putin-Russia apologists is getting to you, Frank.”
I hope I see the important elements of current and past history as clearly a possible. Hitler did intend to use Ukraine’s agricultural lands to feed Germany and provide living room for Germans. The presence and misbehavior of Harvard economists during the corrupt privatization of Russian state-owned businesses is undeniable, but the Russian government was formally responsible.
However, what is important today is that Naz1 ideas have little support in the current Ukrainian government and pose little threat elsewhere. However, Russian nationalist ideology appears to be driving Putin down the same path after losing the Cold War that Hitler followed after losing WWI.
A new factor (to me at least) is the effectiveness of Russian propaganda: The flight of Yanukovych to Russia and his unanimous dismissal by Parliament is called a “coup”. We are told Yanukovych remained in Crimea, when both he and Putin admit he left immediately. The invasion of Crimea is called “secession”. Voting with two weeks of invasion at polling places guarded by Russian soldiers, but unmonitored by international observers, is taken seriously. The Budapest Agreement is ignored. Rebellion in Eastern Ukraine has been turned into a bloody civil war by Russian arms, volunteers and out of uniform soldiers, but that is called secession too. Now, the relative size of the Ukrainian death toll attributed to Hilter and to Stalin is absurdly being offered as a reason why anti-Russian sentiment in the Ukrainian is unjustified.
Russian interference in our recent election and its investigation is dismissed as politically-motivated misbehavior by our intelligence community – even though they kept their mouths shut during the campaign. The Steele Dossier is called a complete fabrication, even though the dossier correctly predicted the release of the Podestra emails, the payments to Manafort, and the existence of a major operation to assist Trump. (The fact that the DNC paid for the dossier doesn’t change the accuracy of these assertions by Steele, nor automatically discredit its other UNPROVEN allegations.) The recent hearings about the massive Russian campaign against HRC via social media appear to provide further evidence that Putin was trying to get Trump elected. Both Papadopolous and DT Jr were offered damaging information against HRC. I doubt we have conclusive evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC, but the timing of the email releases (2 days before the Democratic convention and October as predicted by Steele) make the Russians strong candidates. Whether all this means Trump or his campaign “colluded with” or was merely “assisted by” the Russians is currently unclear to me.
Tony Podestra, who also worked for Yanukovych, just resigned from the Podestra lobbying firm, so Mueller could be after him. Can that take us to the CGI? That is probably not within the scope of Mueller’s charter, but others could take over. Drain the swamp, including those who attached themselves to Trump.
I agree with your excellent summation of the foolishness going on here, until the third paragraph. It’s late and I have had my limit of KY bourbon and I will have to think on that. Boa noite, Frank.
Frank, please quote the parts of the Steele dossier that you believe have been verified or “correctly predicted” something or other.
Don asked: please quote the parts of the Steele dossier that you believe have been verified or “correctly predicted” something or other.
This is the copy of the Steele Dossier I have been reading. It doesn’t allow for copy and paste, so please forgive any typos.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html
A) p20. “Ex-Ukrainan President YANUKOVYCH confides directly to PUTIN that he authorized kick-back payments to Manafort”
A Ukrainian legislator has allegedly shown the press Ukrainian records documenting such payments. I assume that Mueller’s indictment of Manafort means he also has some evidence showing that this is true, but I haven’t studied that indictment carefully. Superficially, I judge allegation A) confirmed.
B) p23 Item 3 (dated 9/14/16): “Kremlin had further “kompromat” on candidate CLINTON and had been considering releasing this via “plausibly deniable” channels after … mid-September.”
The Podestra emails were released in early October. Allegation B) certainly appears confirmed.
C) p1 (first bullet and Detail 1 and many other places): “the Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting US Republican presidential candidate, Donald TRUMP, for at least 5 years… the TRUMP operation was supported and directed by Russian President Vladimir PUTIN.”
c1) Recent testimony by Facebook, Twitter, and Google indicates that a major Russian operation was run during the campaign to distribute disruptive and Pro-Trump material via social media and blogs. IMO, these organizations have nothing to gain by disclosing how they were manipulated by a foreign adversary.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/30/facebook-russia-fake-accounts-126-million
c2) The intelligence community is adamant about Russian involvement in the DNC hacking, but Steve’s posts show the computer forensic evidence is weak at best. Therefore, it is possible they have undisclosed intelligence for other sources (independent of Steele) supporting their position. From my perspective, the dates the email was released clearly show an intent to harm the HRC campaign and Steele predicted the second release. Therefore, most likely, the email hack was part of a Russian operation to influence our election.
c3) With 20/20 hindsight, Trump’s unusually favorable opinion about Russian and Putin is evidence that he has been cultivated by the Russians – but not with the expectation that he would become a politician.
IMO, Allegation C) has been confirmed. The DNC email hack is mentioned in many places
D) Elsewhere the Steele Dossier asserts that there was two-way communication – collusion. I’m am NOT claiming that this has been confirmed, just C) the existence of a Russian operation. I assume that Putin would be personally involved, but don’t claim that Putin’s personal involvement has been confirmed.
I don’t claim to be an expert on this evidence and would appreciate hearing where I may have gone wrong. (The DNC paid for the research, but didn’t control the content.) Aside from hearing about sex, I didn’t pay much attention to the dossier when it first came out, but began wondering recently if any allegations had been confirmed over the last ten months. So I read it recently. (I’m not interested in discussing the allegations about sexual compromise.)
https://cryptome.org/2017/01/Steele-Trump.htm has digitized dossier
A. Nope.
Steele wrote about Manafort in Memo 105 dated August 22. https://cryptome.org/2017/01/Steele-Trump.htm#105
There had been multiple articles about Manafort corruption in Ukraine in the preceding couple of weeks, resulting in his resignation on August 19. E.g.
Anything in the dossier that can be verified as true was published. Nothing not otherwise public has been verified.
Too late for further comments.
I’m trying to write up something that I view as very important about connection of dossier to intel assessment, but I’m having a lot of trouble writing things longer than a couple of paragraphs.
Gist is this. I believe that CIA’s super-secret intel (in sense of important WaPo June 23 survey of events) purporting to show that Putin personally ordered DNC hack and collusion with Trump campaign is nothing more and nothing less than early memoranda from Steele dossier.
At time of DNC hack, Putin unsportingly kept himself inaccessible to US surveillance and spies, thus frustrating US intel services ability to connect dots. (WaPo, other refs) In early August, CIA received super-secret intel, supposedly linking Putin directly to DNC hack and Trump collusion. This resulted in Brennan’s hair-on-fire task force (WaPo), FBI investigations. Brennan briefed Obama admin, Gang of Eight.
In early August, early Steele memoranda were provided to FBI and CIA, memoranda which claimed that Putin was directly linked to DNC hack and Trump collusion. Details from dossier memoranda were included in Gang of Eight briefing, as shown by (implausible) details (Carter Page) in article by Isikoff Sep 23, based on leaks from Gang of Eight staffers.
Did lightning strike twice in the same place at the same time? I don’t believe it. If dossier memoranda = super-secret intel, then key fits into the lock exactly.
This creates trouble for the intel assessment and circularity in confirmation claims. On this hypothesis, there is no independent support for Putin’s personal involvement other than the naked assertion in the questionable dossier. Also, the intel assessment cannot confirm the claim in the dossier, since the intel assessment merely re-asserts the claim in the dossier without further support.
B) Nope – already public. You say:
In late August, Julian Assange had publicly announced that Wikileaks would be dropping further and important Clinton documents. Much discussion in September prior to and leading up to Steele memo referenced.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/julian-assange-clinton-leak-227389
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/24/assange-wikileaks-will-absolutely-release-significant-hillary-documents-before-election/
Publicly known that Assange had announced Hillary documents. Does subsequent release CONFIRM that “Kremlin” released them. You’re jumping what’s proven. Assange’s release of announced documents doesn’t prove that KREMLIN released them.
Steve is essentially correct, Frank. Your “confirmations” are very sketchy, tenuous, or outright wrong. The Steele dossier is a contrived hit piece. Zero credibility.
“c3) With 20/20 hindsight, Trump’s unusually favorable opinion about Russian and Putin is evidence that he has been cultivated by the Russians – but not with the expectation that he would become a politician.”
Come on, Frank. You know better than that. It could just as well be Trump having a naive desire to get Putin to do things we want him to do. Hey, let’s have better relations with the Russians. Evidence that he had been cultivated by the Russians, would be actual evidence of some interaction between Trump and the Russians. Some evidence of the Russians providing Trump with something that a multi-billionaire didn’t already have. And that this started 5 years back. There is nothing.
Steve:
“Did lightning strike twice in the same place at the same time? I don’t believe it. If dossier memoranda = super-secret intel, then key fits into the lock exactly.”
This ignores the fact that the NSA and certainly other intel agencies had been monitoring what they identified as Russian hacking of the DNC and other U.S political targets since the Summer of 2015. Signals intelligence and human intelligence. It also ignores the fact that Trump did not want to believe it was Russia, but he now believes it. He has seen the evidence from the intel agencies. Do you really think that if there was nothing other than the Steele dossier supporting the Russia Russia Russia investigation that has been dogging The Donald that he would keep his mouth shut? Come on, Steve.
Steve says: “I believe that CIA’s super-secret intel (in sense of important WaPo June 23 survey of events) purporting to show that Putin personally ordered DNC hack and collusion with Trump campaign is nothing more and nothing less than early memoranda from Steele dossier.”
Maybe not the memoranda themselves, but an FBI paper repeating the allegations? Did the FBI share the “raw” dossier?
Don says: “It also ignores the fact that Trump did not want to believe it was Russia, but he now believes it. He has seen the evidence from the intel agencies.”
Don it is fairly clear from my own reading Trump’s people are accepting Russians did supply the information to Orbis agents because they believe this damns his opponents for “collusion” with the Russians. They call out about “real collusion” to be investigated. They accept Orbis’ Russian contacts as real, but providing disinformation. Trump recently tweeted whether Orbis was paid by the Democrats, Russians, FBI, or “all of them.”
Don says: “Do you really think that if there was nothing other than the Steele dossier supporting the Russia Russia Russia investigation that has been dogging The Donald that he would keep his mouth shut?”
I think “The Donald” cannot keep his mouth and fingers shut because he knows the whole to do is mostly arisen out of the Steele dossier. Trump has also tweeted a lot about the FBI and Crowdstrike regarding the alleged hack of the DNC.
You are conflating and misconstruing, follow. Look, Trump last year did not want to admit that Russia did the hacking of the DNC and Podesta. I was not talking about who may have supplied info to Steele. The Steele dossier is a red herring. No pun intended.
The point is that now Trump admits it was Russia doing the hacking. When he became Commander in Chief, he was entitled to see all the secret stuff the agencies had on the Russia Russia Russia hysteria. If he found that there was nothing there except for the Steele dossier, do you think he would have kept that information to himself? I will help you: abso-freaking-lutley not!
Thank you Steve. You have debunked much of the evidence I cited about events confirming Steele (except some of C). FWIW, this was my analysis not copied from elsewhere. I recognized that Steele (or his sources) could have learned about some items from information outside of Russia and asked for help.
Given the NYT stories you cite, it looks like Steele was reporting that Yanukovych confirmed the Manafort story reported by the NYT, but that Putin was skeptical when Yanukovych doubted that documentary evidence existed. No confirmation of Steele in the Manafort story.
The email releases were timed to cause the greatest possible damage to HRC, not simply release information that Assange believed the public should know. Two days before the convention (7/22) 27,000 documents were released, two months after the last one was written and 5+ weeks after the Crowdstrike finally cleansed the DNC system (according to your post). Podestra’s password appears to have been stolen on March 9, but I couldn’t locate the period over which his stolen emails were written. If they were written and obtained in spring of 2016, Assange doesn’t have a good excuse for waiting to October to release them, unless he or his source has a political agenda. Did Assange correctly describe in late August the material released in October that Steele implied that the Russians hadn’t decided yet to release?
Assange said: “We have a lot of material, thousands of pages of material,” said the WikiLeaks leader, who remains in exile at Ecuador’s embassy in London. “There’s a variety of different types of documents and different types of institutions that are associated with the election campaign, some quite unexpected angles that are, you know, quite interesting, some even entertaining.”
Assange’s actions require some explanation, but they don’t prove Steele was correct.
Steve wrote: “Gist is this. I believe that CIA’s super-secret intel (in sense of important WaPo June 23 survey of events) purporting to show that Putin personally ordered DNC hack and collusion with Trump campaign is nothing more and nothing less than early memoranda from Steele dossier.”
The first Steele report is dated 6/20 and the second 7/19, though that doesn’t prove earlier versions don’t exist. If the Steele Dossier were the source of the WaPo story on 6/23, then it seems likely that the information went directly from the DNC to both the WaPo and the intelligence agencies. Then the WaPo reporter could go to a source in the intelligence community and get confirmation of information s/he already had. I can’t see the intelligence community initiating a leak of material this explosive without taking some time to confirm it.
The NSA has a big signals interception program. They could have obtained evidence supporting the Steele Dossier that way.
Excerpt that in respect to the particular and essential issue of Putin direct involvement, articles prior to the Steele Dossier have written about US inability to surveille Putin.
Also, in another incident that I’ve alluded to but not written about, the US intel assessment of the 2013 Ghouta chemical attack got credence because of the impression that US intel had super-secret communications intercepts proving their case. However, the assessment reported rocket trajectories that were later shown to be wildly incorrect (based on subsequent public info.) So the IC was pretending to know things that they didn’t really know.
I’m dubious that they have relevant intercepts. If they’d been trying for years to get close to Putin, it’s lightning striking twice if they suddenly get the long sought for human intel in the same week as the Dossier.
Don: “You are conflating and misconstruing, follow. Look, Trump last year did not want to admit that Russia did the hacking of the DNC and Podesta. I was not talking about who may have supplied info to Steele. The Steele dossier is a red herring. No pun intended.”
I have heard Trump’s people assert that the Dossier is proof of Russian collusion with his opponents. To me that sounds like they are using it for their own purposes. I have never heard Trump say what you contend, that he believes “Russia” “hacked” the “DNC” and “Podesta.” If you have contrary evidence from Trump I will certainly take it in.
“The point is that now Trump admits it was Russia doing the hacking.”
I have not seen that.
“When he became Commander in Chief, he was entitled to see all the secret stuff the agencies had on the Russia Russia Russia hysteria. If he found that there was nothing there except for the Steele dossier, do you think he would have kept that information to himself? I will help you: abso-freaking-lutley not!”
But he does not keep it to himself. He constantly calls the evidence fake and the investigation worthless. If there was “all the secret stuff” you suspect then he would be quiet.
As for Crowdstrike he has often tweeted about the FBI not having access to the server. If the FBI has received it more recently I do not know.
Also the investigation Mueller is heading is not the only investigation or intelligence review currently proceeding.
Google could be your friend if you could follow the facts and the logic.
Try this “trump admits russia hack”
Don, you don’t read carefully.
While he was president he has said Russia “interfered.” This has been misinterpreted as admission of Russian participation in certain publicly suspected hacks.
Here is what he said directly about the hack which the Washington Post and others claimed was Trump’s admission Russia “hacked” Podesta and the DNC:
“I think it very well could be Russia but I think it could very well have been other countries,” Trump said Thursday at a press conference with Polish President Andrzej Duda. “I think a lot of people interfere.”
Trump added: “I think it was Russia but I think it was probably other people and or countries. I see nothing wrong with that statement. Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure.”
Show me something better from Trump to support your argument and I will bow down to your snark. Otherwise don’t waste peoples’ time.
I see part of your problem. You don’t get Trump speak and you interpret it to suit your preferred narrative. Can’t you see that Trump makes contradictory statements, often in the same breath, depending on whether or not he has had his lunch or his snack on time.
I think it very well could be Russia….
I think it was Russia….
I think it was Russia but….blah blah blah….Nobody knows for sure.
I could give you about a hundred of those. I could also quote him about a hundred times saying Obama should have stopped the Russian interference. What do you think everybody is talking about, when they are talking about Russian interference? Do you think it does not include the most important acts of the interference. The hacks of DNC and Podesta. Oh, maybe it’s just the facebook ads BS. Or the Macedonian bots. Or those videos Russia faked of Hillary passing out and losing her shoe as she was thrown in her Scooby van/ambulance.
Nobody has said they know for sure it was Russia. Most of the intel community involved in the investigation said they blame Russia with high confidence, except Adm. Rogers at NSA who said his agency had medium confidence. Can you show me one of Trump’s recent statements that says it wasn’t Russia? Or that it probably wasn’t Russia? Or he names a better suspect? Has he called the intel evidence for Russia hacking he has seen since he became POTUS fake? And don’t conflate what he says about the obviously fake Steele dossier with what he has said recently about the hacking of DNC and Podesta. That’s another one of your issues with facts and logic.
I bet I know Trump’s idiosyncrasies a lot better than you do and I interpret his varied and imprecise statements as meaning he begrudgingly accepts, with medium confidence, that it was Russia. And I know he has confidence in Adm. Rogers head of NSA and CYBERCOM and that is what Rogers told him to think. Period.
Please don’t continue with this, unless you can get your head around the basic facts. I am getting really tired of stubborn, ill-informed, illogical characters like you. I hope I have made myself clear.
Steve:”Excerpt that in respect to the particular and essential issue of Putin direct involvement, articles prior to the Steele Dossier have written about US inability to surveille Putin.”
What makes you think the articles were accurate? Why would the intel community tell some writer they were unable able to surveil Putin? I can think of only one likely reason. Also, they would not necessarily have to surveil Putinski personally to find out what he is up to. He would not be the only one to know what orders and directions he was giving.
This looks like a credible report on the rockets used in the Ghouta attack:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23927399
“Human Rights Watch said the Syrian military was believed to have M-14 rockets, and one of the three warheads produced for them can carry 2.2kg (4.8lb) of sarin. Rebel forces were not believed to possess M-14s nor the associated BM-14 launching system, it added.
The organisation said the 330mm rockets were “of a type not listed in standard, specialised, international or declassified reference materials”. However, the rocket type had been documented in a number of other attacks on opposition-held areas in recent months, it noted.
Human Rights Watch said the 330mm rockets would be compatible with the 333mm Falaq-2 launcher produced by Iran, which the Syrian government is known to possess. Videos have emerged appearing to show Syrian troops using Falaq-2 systems to launch similarly adapted rockets. Human Rights Watch said no evidence had been produced showing rebel forces were in possession of the rockets or their associated launchers.”
Both the M14 140mm and the 333mm Falaq-2 have a range of 10 km.
This report says the 330mm rocket couldn’t have a range of more than a couple km. But who are these characters? They didn’t have access to the sites or the rockets.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article24761710.html
Don, I’ve looked very closely at the data and disagree. There is physical evidence of the rocket impact sites, which leads to opposite conclusion.
Besides the BBC article which you cited, the leading contemporary articles endorsing the BBC position (based on US intel assessment) showed maps pointing to the supposed origin of chemical rocket attack.
Human Rights Watch
New York Times here here map
The earlier Obama admin intel assessment , which contained a similar map, stated:
Except that the analyses of rocket origins and trajectories – and claims about satellite detections – are, in my opinion, 100% bogus. The physical evidence -see WhoGhouta especially, also Postol – shows convincingly that the range of the rockets which landed in east Ghouta was only 1.8-2 km and that they originated from the N-NNW.
I’ve parsed this information in minute detail. I’ve intended to write it up for months, but I get very tired trying to finish longer articles these days and don’t get things done. The over-egging on this topic by US intel – which can be objectively confirmed – has made me reluctant to uncritically believe them on other assessments offered without evidence.
After I suggested that Trump’s surprisingly favorable attitude towards Putin is consistent with with Steele’s allegation that Russia has been cultivating Trump for at least five years, Don Monford objected (perhaps justifiably):
“Come on, Frank. You know better than that. It could just as well be Trump having a naive desire to get Putin to do things we want him to do. Hey, let’s have better relations with the Russians. Evidence that he had been cultivated by the Russians, would be actual evidence of some interaction between Trump and the Russians. Some evidence of the Russians providing Trump with something that a multi-billionaire didn’t already have. And that this started 5 years back. There is nothing.”
Let’s explore. Trump started toying with the idea of running for President for the 2012 election, so the Russians might have begun cultivating him for that reason. Sure, Trump was unlikely to become president, but VP or cabinet member or political power broker were possibilities. So, there was a reason to begin cultivating Trump five years earlier.
Trump’s basic foreign policy position is that liberal interventionists and neo-cons are both wrong. America first. America’s allies and trading partners are taking advantage of us. We aren’t tough enough with those who threaten us, such as Iran, North Korea and Islamic terrorism. It isn’t clear to me why Trump wouldn’t put Russia on the list of those who threaten our interests, particularly in Syria (where Russia drops more bombs on the rebels we support than on ISIS and Al Qaeda).
Perhaps Trump feels kinship with Putin because they are both authoritarian bullies. Is Trump favorably disposed to other authoritarian bullies? I can’t think of any. If you don’t like my somewhat rude characterization of what Trump and Putin have in common, pick your preferred descriptor and ask if Trump is favorably disposed to similar leaders. If anything, Trump is generally disdainful of other leaders unless they give Trump what he wants most: respect and victories to brag about. (After Xi’s first visit, he was Trump’s buddy for a few months.)
I’d say Trump’s attitude towards Russian and Putin is fairly unique, which suggests they may have been cultivating him. His beauty pageant was held in Moscow, presumably because they offered him a good deal financially. Trump likely knows a lot of Russians living near New York City and obviously some in Moscow like the Agalarovs. Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer (and former Trump Organization employee) has family (on his wife’s side) in Russia. (Cohen discussed a deal between Ukraine and Russia).
I’ll agree this is not strong evidence.
Don Monfort:
I’m not sure the words “credible” and “report” mean anything when joined together in a discussion of this topic. They should, but I’ve seen Steve McIntyre link to reports with claims like, the sarin gas was released via a homemade aerosolized delivery device… made out of a rocket tube.
That wasn’t for the Ghouta attack, mind you, but the Khan Shaykhun attack of earlier this year. While Syria and Russia both claim the attack was a false flag operation, Donald Trump said there was no doubt Syria did this attack and launched a response involving 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase – for which he received near universal praise within the United States.
Now, perhaps that was a false flag operation. Perhaps data really was falsified and faked to show the Ghouta attacked contained sarin gas. Or perhaps Syria and Russia really are evil governments that don’t mind slaughtering their citizens to instill terror in the populous. I think any “credible report” would show which of these two narratives is more likely to be true.
But hey, as long as some guy on the internet says something, that’ll be enough for some people to act as though they have a case. After all, unclassified reports the government releases don’t contain that much detailed information and hard evidence. Clearly, that means they have none. It’s not that unclassified assessments are the government’s attempt at compromising with the public by showing what has been concluded while not revealing confidential information.
I don’t mind people challenging the government’s narratives, but I do wish they’d at least do a halfway decent job of it. Various non-government groups put significant effort into examining things like this, including visiting the locations and talking to witnesses. People on the internet look at a few pictures, read some news articles/online discussions and then manage to screw up any number of details from even the limited sample of information they look at.
Brandon says “Clearly that means that they have none”
##### #######=
Not necessarily. They “clearly” might have sources or means of intelligence that they naturally would wish to protect. Or that our intelligence organizations are not so intelligent. Or the intelligence agency has been politically polluted (corrupted).
There is no question that the preponderance of the evidence shows that Syria launched rockets containing sarin into Ghouta. There is a question whether Assad ordered the attack and what degree of responsibility he bears for it, although I judge him capable of such an act.
I’ve looked at both sides of the argument, looked at detailed maps of the area and have done hours of homework on the Ghouta incident. I do not start with the assumption with a government agency is wrong.
In the Ghouta case, one of the advocates of short range of the chem rockets was MIT professor Postol, who is regularly slagged by Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat, but who is clearly right on this point. The leader of the UN team conceded on this point.
The fallback position is that, even if the rockets had a short range and came from a different direction than originally proposed, they were nonetheless launched by Assad government. This remains possible, but, once the supposed satellite detections are excluded from attribution (as they must be since they detected something else), the confidence in any attribution is hugely reduced. Indeed, attribution may not be possible – a position arguably reached by Sellstrom, the leader of the UN inspection team.
Until people have done some homework on this, not worth a whole lot of discussion.
You are just some guy on the internet, Brandon. And I am sure that you have no particular expertise in rockets and chemical weapons production and delivery systems. But that doesn’t stop you from making totally vague and uninformed criticisms of the opinions of those who are far more knowledgeable than you are. The particular BBC report I cited is credible. Try to poke some holes in it. A lot of people investigated the incidents of which you are only casually aware. They gathered and analyzed evidence and came to a very plausible conclusion. You really don’t know sh!t from Shinola about it. Do you think it was the Martians what done it? This comment is about the worst I have seen from you, Brandon. It’s devoid. Nothing there. I am surprised.
That is not evidence, Frank.
Steve, all internet sources put the maximum range of the 140mm and the 330mm rockets used in the Ghouta attack at 10 km. You adhere to sources that claim a maximum range of 2 km for the rockets. I think that your assumptions need to be examined in this respect. I would urge you to write up the range issue as a start. There are forums on the i-net which have discussed this rocket issue in complex detail, with seeming expert contributions. These can be referred to. But I agree that this topic is not a suitable topic for those who are not well informed on the complexities.
Steve, Postol is full of crap. His analysis depends on what he thinks he knows about the rockets and his calculations based only on what he thinks he knows. Various parties have examined the rockets, tested the site, talked to many witnesses, have access to signal, human and photo intelligence. Several investigations and the intel services of several countries came to the same conclusion based on actual evidence and informed assessments of the relative capabilities of the anti-Assad forces and the Assad forces, which include Iranian military resources.
Postol says that satellite imagery could not have captured the rockets impact. He knows squat about satellite intelligence and very likely has never seen an artillery rocket impact. I viewed thousands of satellite reconnaissance photos, up until 25 years ago. I have had 122 mm rockets impact a few meters from my @ss. Even when they don’t explode they kick up a lot of sh!t. Easily visible with the sat resolution I am familiar with and certainly visible with current sats. There are other issues with Postol’s “analysis” but I won’t spend another second on that clown.
https://blog.mapbox.com/40-cm-satellite-imagery-starts-today-952871f7a915
You seem to believe only what you want to believe.
My comment went into mod. I’ll try again:
Steve, Postol is full of dookey. His analysis depends on what he thinks he knows about the rockets and his calculations based only on what he thinks he knows. Various parties have examined the rockets, tested the site, talked to many witnesses, have access to signal, human and photo intelligence. Several investigations and the intel services of several countries came to the same conclusion based on actual evidence and informed assessments of the relative capabilities of the anti-Assad forces and the Assad forces, which include Iranian military resources.
Postol says that satellite imagery could not have captured the rockets impact. He knows squat about satellite intelligence and very likely has never seen an artillery rocket impact. I viewed thousands of satellite reconnaissance photos, up until 25 years ago. I have had 122 mm rockets impact a few meters from my buttocks. Even when they don’t explode they kick up a lot of ground. Easily visible with the sat resolution I am familiar with and certainly visible with current sats. There are other issues with Postol’s “analysis” but I won’t spend another second on that clown.
https://blog.mapbox.com/40-cm-satellite-imagery-starts-today-952871f7a915
You seem to believe only what you want to believe.
My comment is stuck in moderation. I don’t really care if it comes out. The discussion here is bizarre. Too many seemingly intelligent people who only believe what they want to believe.
Here is the Postol clown again. He seeks to discredit anything the government says on nerve gas attacks. Never offers a credible alternative explanation. Just says the government is lying. I guess he approves of chemical weapons use by dictators:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/04/66712.html
And he makes his determination by examining satellite photos of the detonation of whatever it was on the ground. He is an idiot. In the Ghouta case the satellite photo resolution wasn’t good enough. A device for dispersing nerve gas dropped from a plane would not detonate on the ground. Read the comments. Sea cucumber actually knows what he is talking about. Postol is a fool with an axe to grind. And ask yourself why the nerve gas attacks have stopped since Trump bombed those rascals. Would that stop the rebels from creating trouble for the regime, or would it encourage them to do it again?
Don wrote: “Please don’t continue with this, unless you can get your head around the basic facts. I am getting really tired of stubborn, ill-informed, illogical characters like you. I hope I have made myself clear.”
Yes. You followed your own advice about using Google and the results came up unfavorable to your contention. That is clear.
Commander in Chief says: “I think it was Russia.”
Follow the Dookey: “Huh?”
Don Monfort:
What are you going on about? My comment made light of the phrase “credible report” because of how Steve McIntyre has promoted all sorts of reports as credible when they were not. I didn’t say a single negative thing about the report you linked to, and I didn’t claim to have any knowledge that would contradict the mainstream view of what happened in either of the mentioned chemical attacks.
I made this same point myself. I mocked the “analyses” of people who’ve done almost no work examining topics yet say the people who have done a great deal of work on them are wrong. You seem to be violently disagreeing with me despite saying something I agree with.
I’ve done enough research on this topic to see the many holes in the analyses McIntyre likes to use because of seeing the nonsense he promulgates on Twitter. The strongest arguments he has promoted have been flawed, often fundamentally so. That’s all I need to know. If the best case made by people claiming Syria wasn’t responsible is that bad, I don’t need to learn anything more to conclude Syria was responsible. Quite frankly, I wouldn’t have even questioned the official narrative based on what people have been saying if anyone but McIntyre had been the one promoting the claims. For a while, I thought the fact he was promoting them meant they must have some credibility.
Please try rereading what I wrote. I suspect if you do, you’ll come to a very different conclusion.
OK Brandon, I see how you tricked me. You put my name at the top and quoted me, then you gave a list of criticisms that I knew couldn’t possibly apply to little ole me. Yeah, I misread it. Sorry, but I think I am getting more cynical than ever with all the foolishness that’s going on here. It can be entertaining. For example:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwR2F3NFFVWDExMnc/view
The famous MIT sigh-in-tist, who claims that Syria didn’t do it, the intelligence agencies and the Obama and Trump administrations made it up. How do he know? Well, he looked at some photos of twisted pieces of metal and he has concluded without a speck of doubt it’s all about 122 mm rockets. Steve wouldn’t accept that concocted foolishness from a climate scientist. Whether some unnamed UN official allegedly agreed with it, or not. Is Steve talking about Carla Fel Ponte? We may never know as Steve doesn’t want to talk about it, because we are not up to speed.
Look at figures 2,3,4. He has convinced himself that twisted mashed cylinder is part of a casing from a 122 mm rocket that somebody had filled with sarin and they put a charge on top, and blew it to frame the Syrian govt., who they knew would be bombing in that area at that particular time. And this is related to Ghouta, because part of a 122 mm rocket had allegedly been used in one of the devices, 350 mm rocket, in that incident.
What he seems to not know or choose to ignore is that the other rockets used in the Ghouta caper were M14 140 mm rockets, with a 10 km range, but because the 350 mm rocket that he never saw “could” only have a range under 2 km, it was not the Syrian govt. Presumably it was the rebels poisoning themselves. In figure 8 he ties Ghouta and the most recent incident together by showing an illustration of a 122 mm rocket, and a tube with the exact same dimensions labeled as the Improvised Sarin Dispenser, and a diagram of the alleged 350 mm rocket from the Ghouta caper. And he knows all this from looking at photos of mashed up twisted pieces of metal and he doesn’t have a clue about any pieces of metal that he hasn’t seen.
In the case of the most recent gassing, the rebels apparently faked a Syrian attack delivered by bombs dropped by Su-22 jets by filling a small tube with poison gas, putting a cork in it and laying it in the street and then blowing it with a small charge. Then they left the obviously bogus evidence in the hole. They are really not very smart.
It doesn’t look like a squashed 122 mm casing to me and I have seen a lot of them up close exploded and un-exploded. That mashed tube looks too small and the metal too thick. Rockets are made of light weight materials. And don’t tell me it is 85.4 cm by 12.2 cm, because that clown MIT guy has not measured it. He made up the measurements. Figure 8 is made up BS.
The MIT sigh-in-tist has an axe to grind. He has zero direct knowledge of those incidents.
Don, your link to a discussion of Khan Sheikhoun is irrelevant to the analysis of rockets in east Ghouta. Before yelling about it, you should read the technical analyses of 350 mm rockets at Ghouta that are at issue. These were what were used in east Ghouta. The discussion of 122 mm rockets is totally irrelevant to east Ghouta.
there are two entirely different issues which you, like most people, conflate. It’s very frustrating.
The issue –
Whether the east Ghouta rockets came from the north and/or had a range of 2-3 km
is a different though somewhat related issue to:
whether the east Ghouta rockets were fired by the regime or as a false flag by AlQaeda, ISIS, Liwa al-Islam
Everybody gets excited when the range of the rockets is discussed and starts hyperventilating about the regime, whether they could make the sarin or whether they could make the rockets – all interesting and important issues for attribution of the attack.
But my particular issue raised here was the very narrow one of whether the east Ghouta rockets came from central Damascus as designated in the maps of the intel assessment, New York Times and HRW and whether the intel assessment was backed by satellite detection of the precise chemical rockets.
Regarding that Ghouta attack Don writes: “Presumably it was the rebels poisoning themselves”. As Ghouta is close to center Damascus one could equally presume that Assad forces were not going to poison themselves. Sarin was invented in 1938 in Germany, but Hitler declined to use it after his bad experiences on WW I battle fields. Is Assad more ‘clever’? My bet is on radicalized foreign “rebels” like Iraqi Al Qaeda.
I didn’t create figure 8 in that link, Steve. Did you look at it? Postol lines up the Ghouta rocket, the alleged device created from a 122 mm rocket pipe thingy that the rebels allegedly exploded on the ground, and a 122 mm rocket. I was facetiously pointing out Postol has got 122 mm rocket on the brain. Why does he ignore the 140 mm rockets from the Ghouta attack?
The point is that he has no way of knowing or even supporting a guess that the twisted piece of metal in that hole (figures 2,3,4) is the body of a 122 mm rocket that the rebels have filled with sarin put a cork in it and blew up to simulate a gas bomb dropped from a Syrian Su-22 jet. It’s made up BS. Why would they leave that self-incriminating evidence in a hole, Steve? But they removed any fragments of the explosive device they supposedly put on top of it.
I feel foolish for doing it, but I have spent some time on this BS. I have done a lot of reading, including the UN report. They were sworn to not put the finger on the Syrians as a condition of being allowed to do their investigation, but in Appendix 5 they clearly state that the trajectory of the rockets in the Ghouta incident came from Syrian controlled territory.
Postol’s inexplicable desire to exonerate the Syrians in the Ghouta attack and the most recent attack that got the Syrians bombed is based solely on looking at photos and guesswork. He didn’t investigate anything. He doesn’t have satellites and signals and human intelligence capabilities. All he has is an axe to grind. Read his BS and it is almost entirely political motivated accusations supported by guesswork. He is worse than the worst of the climate scientists.
Let’s say the rebels had the capability to make sarin and to fill home made delivery devices without killing themselves in the process. So then they repeatedly attack their own women and children for years, until Trump finally bombs the Syrians and then they stop. Why TF would they stop? Why hasn’t ISIS made sarin and used it against the people who are in the process of wiping them out? I will help you, it ain’t as easy as you think.
I know you have already seen and dismissed this, but it is far more authoritative than the guesswork of Postol et al. And as far as I am concerned, it is the end of the story:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/22/allegation-false-turkey-chemical-attack-syria
This tells you all about the 350 mm rockets that were known to be in use by the Syrian government. The only mystery here is why anyone would believe it wasn’t the Syrian regime doing the dirty work. Why would the Syrian regime refuse to let the UN in to do the inspection, except on condition of not identifying the perpetrator? I will help you. They are the perp. And Stalinist KGB dictator Putinski is their aider and abettor.
This is regime goons firing the type of 350 mm rockets found at Ghouta. Iranian supplied launcher.
Steve said:”Indeed, attribution may not be possible – a position arguably reached by Sellstrom, the leader of the UN inspection team.”
No surprise there. That is per the agreement he was forced to make with the Syrian regime to be allowed to do the investigation. But Appendix 5 of the report clearly states where the rockets came from.
The conflict in East Ghouta (Damascus) is not between the Syrian Army and the “rebels”: the latter consist of a number of different groups fighting each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Ghouta_inter-rebel_conflict_(April%E2%80%93May_2016)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Ghouta_inter-rebel_conflict_(April%E2%80%93May_2017)
Antony, your links refer to occurrences a few years after the Ghouta sarin attacks. In August,2013, the rebels were united, I believe.
Nope. There were many factions even in east Ghouta. Al-Nusra, Liwa al-Islam both distinct from Faylaq al-Rahman. Could one faction attack another? Of course. Happened on many occasions.
Steve, its not a question of whether there were different factions in Ghouta. It’s a question of whether there was fighting between factions at the time of the Ghouta sarin attack. Can you provide a reference that shows that?
Can’t find any 350 mm rocket artillery world wide: 300 mm or 333 mm yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_artillery
I re-checked the UN report. It says 330 mm rockets. I am pretty sure that’s what I started out with but saw someone call it 350 mm. The UN observation that it was 330 mm lines up with the use of Iranian Falaq-2 333 mm rockets and launchers by the Syrian regime.
That UN report says that
27. On the basis of the evidence obtained during our investigation of the Ghouta
incident, the conclusion is that, on 21 August 2013, chemical weapons have been used in the ongoing conflict between the parties in the Syrian Arab Republic, also against civilians, including children, on a relatively large scale.
I cannot find any direct attribution to the Syria army. https://undocs.org/A/67/997
Antony: “I cannot find any direct attribution to the Syria army. https://undocs.org/A/67/997”
##### #### ####
Syria demanded that the U.N. make no attribution against it and the UN acceded to this demand so that it could make the investigation. The intelligence organizations of the U.S., UK, France, Germany, Israel, and Turkey all found that Syria had perpetrated the sarin attacks.
From our standpoint, the clincher was the use of 140 mm GRAD rockets against west Ghouta. These come with chemical warheads with a 2 kg capacity. A reported seven of these fell in West Ghouta. There has never been documented any use or possession by the opposition of these Soviet era rockets.
The east Ghouta canister type warheads delivered up to 40 kg of sarin and these numbered 8-12. Note the uncertainty in the numbers. This reflects the incompleteness of the investigation. The Syrian government did its best to impede and curtail the U.N. investigation and succeeded in limiting the time available for the U.N. investigation to only a few hours. The MIT professor Theodore Postol I would guess is a hireling of Assad. Postol has conferred with one Maram Susli, aka Syrian Sister who tweets under the nomen Partisan Girl. She associates with Hezbollah and can be considered their agent. She is very active on Twitter on behalf of the Syrian government, tweeting their propaganda.
I too have been very confused to see this site turn to Putin apologia. Putin didn’t hack the DNC = OK I’ll give it a fair hearing. Russia is the good guy in Ukraine = absurd and disgusting and highly disturbing.
eloris: I agree. Putin apologia certainly feels absurd, disgusting and disturbing to me. However, in a world where politicized climate science suppresses the truth about climate reconstructions and the MSM no longer feels any responsibility to present both sides of any issue, almost anything might be true. I enjoy reading Steve’s analyses and obtain fair responses. However, the non-stop stream of Putin propaganda – despite the attempts of several to refute it with links to reliable sources – probably is tarnishing the reputation of his site. However, that’s Steve’s business and he may find the refutations unconvincing. Perhaps Putin is misunderstood. If so, I need better evidence.
Blame me. I’m the one who convinced Steve that Putin is a fine fellow. Me and Don Montfort, together, we opened Steve’s eyes to the admirable character of this outstanding statesman. We are going to open your eyes, too, howsoever tight you might close them.
I’ll give painter a B- for the humor and a F on the veracity. I will give him a nolo contendere on spelling. It’s Monfort, not Montfort. Way back in the day, in jolly olde England, it was Anglicized from the Norman-French de Montfort (montfort is a fort on a mountain). Hugues de Montfort was one of Willy the Conqueror’s chief lieutenants. A future family member, Simon de Montfort, deposed Henry III and ruled England for a short time. Very famous Crusader. Lot of images of Simon in Chartres Cathedral. Don’t get the idea that the Montforts are Frenchies. Norman=Norsemen=Viking types. I wonder if they were watching me from Viking heaven growing up in Detroit with the homeys. They wouldn’t understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montfort-sur-Risle
Those leaked e-mails got former DNC interim chair Donna Brazile checking about the on goings in her own party: Hillary had “aborted” Bernie one year before his official step back with her financial muscle and cunning. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
I read an article today from the Washington Post where Brazille said DNC people told her not to worry about the hack to much. But her feelings change when she met Susan Rice and Holder in “August” 2016. They told her to take the hack very seriously.
WP: “At first, Brazile writes of the hacking, top Democratic officials were “encouraging us not to talk about it.” But she says a wake-up moment came when she visited the White House in August 2016, for President Obama’s 55th birthday party. National security adviser Susan E. Rice and former attorney general Eric Holder separately pulled her aside to urge her to take the Russian hacking seriously, which she did, she writes.”
This is probably another effect of the Steele dossier.
I am curious whether the FBI shared the raw memoranda with others, or summarized it.
Maybe they “laundered” the memos taking out the more ridiculous parts to make the others more viably belief-worthy.
On Fake News reg. Donna Brazile after her exposures: https://theintercept.com/2017/11/05/four-viral-claims-spread-by-journalists-on-twitter-in-the-last-week-alone-that-are-false/
“Crimea: Corruption Fueling Feud Between Local and Federal Elites”
(7/16/15).
The corrupt new government in Crimea must not be kicking back enough money to Moscow.
http://www.eurasianet.org/node/74266
Crimean remorse?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/19/crimeans-still-tigerish-over-split-with-ukraine
https://en.russiangate.com/corruption/corruption-and-property-redistribution-in-crimea-/
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/08/corruption-eats-russia-annexed-crimea-150831120645728.html
In Crimea, Russian Land Grab Feeds Cries of ‘Carpetbaggers!’
By NEIL MacFARQUHARSEPT. 30, 2017
The EuroMaidan heroes continue their heroics:
The Guardian:
“After Ukrainian activists blew up energy pipelines to Crimea in late November, it was plunged into darkness. People ate dinner by candlelight, factories shut down and even traffic lights stopped working for the first few days.”
Striking another blow for the people.
Well, it is now November 3, 2017, so your story about somebody blowing up something in late November (actually 2015) is obviously not something that is continuing in close proximity to freaking now. You really don’t care how foolish you look.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/10/vladimir-putin-may-believe-time-is-ripe-for-another-invasion
Here is a good quote for the Stalinist KGB dictator Putin apologists:
“What is going on? As ever in the opaque world of neo-Kremlinology, nobody quite knows. But two years after Putin sent “little green men” – actually undercover Russian special forces soldiers – to overrun Crimea, another military offensive seems distinctly possible. Crimea’s “parliament” said Ukraine had already launched an undeclared war. Ukraine says the supposed plot is FSB fiction.”
I wonder why they put Crimea’s “parliament” in quotes. Oh, that means it is a Stalinist KGB dictator Putinski puppet parliament.
Anti-Putin sanctions in action (Reuters):
“Siemens has not delivered turbines to Crimea and complies with all export control restrictions,” said Wolfram Trost, a spokesman for Siemens in Munich, when asked to confirm the turbine transfer to Crimea.
#### #### ####
Dated July 5, 2017. The Crimea no longer depends on Ukrainian power. I suspect that this is typical of how the sanctions work.
To clarify, the Crimea has its own power plant, newly built, with Siemens turbines generating the power. That nasty Putin did it again. Pathetic.
mpainter wrote: “After Ukrainian activists blew up energy pipelines to Crimea in late November, it was plunged into darkness.”
Those were power cables, not energy pipelines. After Russia invaded and annexed part of Ukraine, I think it was exceptionally generous of Ukraine to continue to sell electricity and water to their former citizens – who allegedly voted to leave Ukraine.
Of course, the Russian could respond by shutting off natural gas to Ukraine – as they did in 2009. Tymoshenko negotiated a solution to that crisis and was convicted of “abuse of power” for doing so. Eventually the Ukrainian Supreme Court overturned that verdict.
Of course, the EuroMaidan demonstrators had nothing to do with this attack. It was the responsibility of the Crimean Tatars (who are Sunni Muslims). They used to be the most populous group in Crimea, but some were driven out by the tsar after Crimea was conquered and the rest were exiled (for collaborating with the Germans) to Central Asia after the liberation of Crimea in WWII. About 300,000 have returned to Crimea, where they now constitute only 12% of the population. Needless to say, they weren’t part of the 96% who voted to join Russia. (Another 25% were Ukrainian speaking.) There are at least 1.3 million living in outside Crimea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatar_diaspora
More falsehoods from Frank:
mpainter wrote: “After Ukrainian activists blew up energy pipelines to Crimea in late November, it was plunged into darkness.”
#####
False. I quoted it.
“Eventually the Ukrainian Supreme Court overturned that verdict.”
####
False. The law was changed by unconstitutional parliamentary diktat. The Supreme Court found that there was no evidence to convict under the new law. The verdict was not overturned; the LAW was overturned.
“Another 25% were Ukrainian speaking.”
#####
False.Only 10% of Crimeans speak Ukrainian.
Please stop your falsehoods.
Frank wrote: “Eventually the Ukrainian Supreme Court overturned [Tymoshenko’s] verdict”.
mpainter replies: “False. The law was changed by unconstitutional parliamentary diktat. The Supreme Court found that there was no evidence to convict under the new law. The verdict was not overturned; the LAW was overturned.
Parliament’s changing or eliminating a law doesn’t overturn convictions made when that law was in effect. (Take legalization of marihuana, for example.) Parliament’s ordering Tymoshenko’s release didn’t overturn her conviction, but it did get her out of jail while her case was being appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that Tymoshenko hadn’t “abused power”, because she was doing her normal job as Prime Minister negotiating a new natural gas deal with Russia at the time. Here in the United States we could accuse Obama or Kerry of “abuse of power” for negotiating an agreement with Iran that obviously was not in the US’s best interest, but fortunately we don’t have such vague laws that can criminalize normal political actions. And now, neither do the Ukrainians. The EU, most of the rest of the world, Amnesty International and others severely criticized Yanukovych for his politically motivated prosecution of a political opponent under such a vague law.
I have already provided a link above to Russian reports covering the overturning of Tymoshenko’s conviction by the Ukrainian Supreme Court. The other assertions can be found in her wikipedia article.
Yes, the Ukrainian Parliaments actions were unusual. However, Tymoshenko had back problems, had been on a hunger strike, was being denied medical care, came our of prison and spoke to the public from a wheelchair. There was some urgency in addressing Yanukovych’s abuse.
Frank wrote: “Another 25% [of Crimeans] were Ukrainian speaking.”
mpainter wrote: “False.Only 10% of Crimeans speak Ukrainian. Please stop your falsehoods.”
According to Wikipedia, Crimea contained 22.3%, 26.5%, 25.1%, 25.8%, and 24.0% Ukrainian speakers in 1959, 1970, 1979, 1989, and 2001. The latter was reported by the free Ukraine and the four earlier numbers by the USSR. After the Russians annexed the Ukraine, they reported only 15.7% Ukrainian speakers. The new authorities may have killed or exiled several hundred thousand Ukrainian speakers before reporting lower numbers in 2014, but they were still there during the referendum. It is obvious the balloting was biased by intimidation or outright fraud – which is why Putin didn’t allow any foreign observers.
I wouldn’t think of telling you any falsehoods. I would be a waste of time, since you only listen to things that agree with your preconceptions and misconceptions. However, I don’t want others to be fooled by the Russian propaganda that has been pouring into the blogosphere and social media.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea
I do see that The Guardian carried a story about blowing up Crimean “energy pipelines”, but you didn’t provide a citation. Other sources say this was the high voltage power lines running into Crimea, which is why the electricity went out.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35204304
I predict that we shall now enjoy the spectacle of the EU and NATO requiring the Ukraine to curb its nationalistic bigotry in order to qualify for consideration for membership.
Very ironic, in view of the fact that EuroMaidan, with its rampant nationalism was fostered by the EU and the Obama State Department.
Some say that corruption in the Ukraine is worse now than formerly. Tymoshenko holds this view. So much for EuroMaidan and the hoped for EU membership.
mpainter: “Very ironic, in view of the fact that EuroMaidan, with its rampant nationalism was fostered by the EU and the Obama State Department.”
I sure wish our State Department was capable of putting up to a half million demonstrators on the streets in countries half way around the world in the dead of winter for three months – twice in one decade. Unfortunately, we can’t.
Putin has witnessed such crowds tearing down the Berlin Wall, ending Russian domination of Eastern Europe, preventing a coup against Gorbachev and causing the dissolution of the USSR. He fears that someday they could be coming for him.
mpainter: “Some say that corruption in the Ukraine is worse now than formerly. Tymoshenko holds this view.”
Yes, I’m sure you will be able to provide a LINK showing that Tymoshenko thinks the current government is more corrupt than the one that put her in jail. FWIW, FreedomHouse shows modest improvement in corruption and judicial reform, but increasing intolerance and extremism from the civil war in Eastern Ukraine.
https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/2017/ukraine
Hungary vetoed discussions of Ukraine NATO membership and delivered the message to the Ukraine: NATO does not want your bigotry, clean it up. Slim chance that this will be cleaned up, even less chance that the corruption will be cleaned up. Julia Tymoshenko has called the present government “corruption conglomerate”. Imagine that.
How does teh recent Papadopulous guilty plea with the assertion that Russian agents were offering hacked emails affect all of this analysis?
I dunno. How?
there’s a lot of spinning on Papadopolous. I;ve read the plea agreement closely and it’s hard to make sense of P’s conduct. In the original story on Pap by WaPo in August, based on leaks to WaPo from people with access to emails delivered by Trump campaign to Mueller, Pap’s efforts to arrange a meeting in Russia were consistently swatted down by seniors in the Trump campaign. Every such fact (all of which are exonerating) is omitted by Mueller et al from the Pap plea, making the episode seem more damning to the campaign than the WaPo article.
Pap seems to have been free-lancing in his attempts to arrange a meeting with Putin – a proposal that was consistently rejected by the campaign. Even so, there was nothing illegal in trying to arrange a meeting.
According to contents of the document, it looks like Pap consistently oversold the prospects of such a meeting. The only offered meeting mentioned in the plea agreement is for Pap to visit the North American desk at the Min Foreign Affairs, far less grandiose than what Pap was telling the campaign. (But maybe there’s more).
Timofeev, the “MFA Connection”, appears to be a valid academic with the Russian International Affairs Council, a valid think tank which issued a joint report last summer with CSIS, a US think tank. It doesn’t appear from the documents that Timofeev offered any “dirt”. On the contrary, his offer looks like what you’d expect from a non-spy.
The offer of “dirt” on Hillary (emails) appears to have been offered by Mifsud, a Maltese professor based in London and affiliated with University of Stirling. Anti-Trump commenters say that the offered emails show foreknowledge of the hacked DNC emails, but this is mixing up the timelines. In early 2016, there was much controversy over the 33,000 deleted emails from the Clinton server – that’s what would be involved in whatever Mifsud was talking about, not the DNC emails. Plus, nearly all of the DNC leaked emails were hacked AFTER April 24. It’s inconceivable that Mifsud would be that plugged in. Plus Hillary is scarcely mentioned in the DNC hack emails, so they aren’t “dirt” on her, but on the DNC.
Mifsud seems to be a sketchy character. He had an Honorary from the University of East Anglia, to cap it off. But I’m not sure that we KNOW that Mifsud was acting for Russian intelligence. I’m not sure what’s going on with him – it seems a total gong show.
Mifsud calls Papadoofalous a liar:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/10/31/joseph_mifsud_the_professor_in_the_russia_investigation_denies_his_role.html
Papadoofalous is a zero sum non-entity. Mueller is wasting his time on that clown.
hard to believe that Papadopolous would have been convicted of anything if he’d gone to trial. Some of the statements that he confessed as “false” e.g. that Mifsud was a “nothing” seem reasonable enough as at the time of his interview, even if he’d thought something more previously. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence on Mifsud offering “dirt” to P, other than P’s own confession. No mention of emails containing such an offer. Sounds like P got mixed up in his interview. I’m sure that he was plenty nervous. And threatened by Mueller, gave up a confession as he couldn’t afford to pay for a defence. P doesn’t even rise to a pawn.
I wonder whether Mifsud really did offer “dirt” or whether this confession was bullied out of Papadopolous. P’s evidence is so sketchily connected to truth that he might have given bullying prosecutors what they wanted. Very odd and hard to say.
Weissman’s over-zealotry pointlessly destroyed Arthur Andersen. I don’t blame people for being worried, as a Weissman process has little interest in justice, only scalps.
US criticized Ukraine for using criminal process against political opponents. Pot, meet kettle.
as we learn more of Mifsud’s sketchy academy, one can easily picture why he would have a much greater interest in Papadopolous as a Trump “adviser”, separate from Russian spying. Adding Papadapolous to his staff (as seems to have briefly happened), given his credential as a “Trump adviser” would add cachet to his ragged little enterprise. Two hucksters promoting off one another. Nothing comes of it. Meanwhile, Papadopolous is making up stories to try to make something of his unlikely inclusion on Trump’s team, who lose interest in the hanger on. Then after the fact, Mueller’s thugs arrive and make up an even more fantastic story than Papadopolous started with. Reminiscent of LeCarre’s cartoon Americans.
Papadopoulos is a personality type, one known to prosecutors. Guys like him crater under pressure or on the witness stand. I’m sure that Mueller’s goons spotted him right from the beginning and worked him over thoroughly. There is no telling what Papadopoulos agreed to do. But I predict that Mueller might not intend to use him as a courtroom witness as that could backfire. It is obvious what Mueller is up to. But the heat is now on Mueller. A resolution has been introduced into the House, calling for his resignation.
The big question about the whole Mueller investigation is what possible crimes – if any – are involved in “colluding” with a foreign power during an election.
One possibility is that the release of the DNC email could be treated as a non-monetary foreign contribution to the Trump campaign. Papadopoulos could testify about how valuable this information was in the eyes of the leaders of the Trump campaign. Anyone encouraging that release could be considered to be soliciting a donation.
The second possibility is quid pro quo corruption or possibly the intent to do so.
The third possibility is that no charges associated with collusion will ever be filed and the Mueller will simply carry out his assigned task of investigating collusion and reporting what he finds. Then Congress can pass a law to fill in the gap.
At this point, Mueller presumably only needs to disclose Papadopoulos’s actions with regard to the crime he has been charged with – lying to the FBI. He presumably doesn’t have to disclose what Papdopoulos knew about “crimes” arising from collusion.
Right, Don, your video is the smoking gun. It shows the SAA operating an Iranian launcher firing the exact same rocket that was launched against east Ghouta, with the canister warhead and the unique spin stabilizer device attached just in front of the nozzle (with HE instead of sarin). This one of a kind type of rocket is what Postol claims was manufactured by the rebels. Who believes Postol now?
And right again, the west Ghouta 140 mm rockets are ignored by those who claim that the sarin attack was a rebel false flag operation. But those 140 mm katusha rockets are the other smoking gun.
Trump / Putin. Trump said Putin was a stronger leader than Obama. Everything else in the echo chamber is noise and false attribution.
Steve, I have scoured the i-net and cannot find Postol’s analysis of the east Ghouta 330 mm rockets that were used in the sarin attack. Can you provide a link to that, please and thanks.
Here is one report: There might be another:
Click to access possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.pdf
Thanks, Don. One flaw in Postol’s analysis is he bases his calculated trajectory on the flat head of the canister. A nose cone would have reduced air drag by 80%, according to the diagram provided. A nose cone would have been simple to attach to the gas canister. The Syrian army would not have been unaware of such a simple expedient to greatly improve the rockets range.
Such a device could be rather flimsy and entirely destroyed on impact of the rocket. Or, by the detonation of the charge meant to disperse the sarin, as some sources suggest was done. So Pistol ignores the obvious: the easily achieved benefits of a nose cone fitted to the canister warhead. I would guess by a nose cone the range would be increased to eight km, more or less. Pistol claims 2 km range for these rockets. The closest SAA positions are said to have been less than three km from the point of impact.
Also, the range of the rocket depends on the fuel load. Pistol calculates fuel load of a 122 mm rocket tube, but these were 330 mm rockets fitted with a 122mm rocket motor. ? Postol should know better.
Also, Postol makes much of the aerodynamic instability of these rockets. But these east Ghouta 330 rockets were fitted with a unique spin stabilizer device fitted just in front of the nozzle. A spin stabilized rocket would have much improved aerodynamics over regular fin stabilizing, I believe. Pistol does not address this improved stability.
Also ignored by the pro-Syrian arguments is the fact that hexamine was found at the sarin sites in Ghouta. Hexamine is an additive used in the makeup of sarin by Syria. It acts both as a catalyst and as a stabilizer. It is the thumbprint of Syrian manufacture because others use a different chemical for that. The argument that the rebels obtained sarin from Turkey falls flat in face of the hexamine ingredient.
Yeah, that’s one flaw. He knows there could have been a simple nose cone but he chooses to ignore that fact. He also studiously ignores the fact that most of the rockets fired in the incident were M-14 140 mm rockets with a range of up to 10 km. Postol doesn’t even mention them. I wonder why he doesn’t want to talk about the 140 mm. They could have been fired from well within the Syrian government controlled territory and picked up by U.S. satellites that are closely observing Syria. That blows his story about the U.S. lying about picking up rockets on satellite imaging.
The video I posted above depicts a Syrian regime vehicle launching rockets that look pretty much like the 350 mm Ghouta examples. We know the regime has used the Iranian 350 mm Falaq-2 launcher. That looks like it. They could have driven a launcher right up to the edge of regime controlled territory, or into contested territory, before doing a shoot and scoot. Also, looks to me like the distance from the launcher to impact is more than 2 clicks. I know artillery.
This reminds me of the alleged genius engineers and other nutty types, who swear that their calculations prove the Trade Center buildings had to have been blown up by some Israeli demolition elves, who sneaked in explosives in their lunch buckets. Just ignore the jumbo jets full of aviation fuel that flew into the towers. Like Postal ignores the 140 mm rockets.
If I had a proper stop watch, I could calculate the distance to the impact.
Rough guess from the sound travel, maybe not more than 2 clicks. I am guessing from tube elevation they could get more range.
OK, I slowed the video and got 7 seconds, about 2.4 km.
Right, Don, your video is the smoking gun. It shows the SAA operating an Iranian launcher firing the exact same rocket that was launched against east Ghouta, with the canister warhead and the unique spin stabilizer device attached just in front of the nozzle (with HE instead of sarin). This one of a kind type of rocket is what Postol claims was manufactured by the rebels. Who believes Postol now?
And right again, the west Ghouta 140 mm rockets are ignored by those who claim that the sarin attack was a rebel false flag operation. But those 140 mm katusha rockets are the other smoking gun.
look through http://whoghouta.blogspot.ca before finalizing views on this. There are lots of issues.
On provenance of 350 mm rockets: by 2013, the opposition had occupied several army bases and taken large amounts of equipment. Could that have included rockets of a type used in Syria: of course it could. In addition, unlike some contested areas, Syria had manufacturing capability sufficient to make the 350 mm rockets. For example, there used to be a video of Muhaysini announcing a large rocket assault on Aleppo using rockets made in local workshops for Al Qaeda. (Frustrating that Youtube has erased large swathes of the history of this dispute.) I took a couple of screenshots showing rockets: they are not identical in measurements, but are no more and no less complicated than the Ghouta rockets.
There is also a video of Liwa al-Islam firing rockets from a location, geolocated by Whoghouta
to the same location that he had posited for the origin of the east Ghouta rockets based on careful analysis of trajectory and distance.
The rockets in the video are similar to rockets in east Ghouta.
There is controversy over the authenticity of the video – see WhoGhouta discussion.
You challenge the idea that “rebels” could be so heartless as to launch a chemical attack on their own. Well, in this case, both the “rebels” include Al Qaeda and ISIS, both of whom were in the area at the time. Further, most maps of east Ghouta show a single color for “opposition” control, without disaggregating which faction controlled which area. Subsequent maps indicate that the Zamalka area which was the target of the rockets was held by FSA, while the origin area proposed by WhoGhouta was held by and/or accessible to Al Qaeda and/or Liwa al-Islam (now Jaish al-Islam). The east Ghouta areas controlled by Liwa/Jaish al-Islam included manufacturing areas.
The reason why “west Ghouta” – do you mean south Ghouta – results are little analysed is the apparent absence of sarin in local environmental samples.
It’s a while since I looked at this data, but the story is much more complicated than you and Don assume.
Steve, west Ghouta according to Wikipedia.
The photos you show are fin stabilized, not spin stabilized. Study the device of the Ghouta rocket and compare it to the videos (the second video shows that same device with better clarity). The SAA rockets show spin stabilization devices. Rebel rockets merely fins.
The 140 mm Katushya rockets of west Ghouta cannot be argued against. Postol’s east Ghouta argument depends on a theoretical fraction of a kilometer range. Not convincing, Steve.
Fin stabilization vs spin stablization sounds interesting and is new to me. The example below looks fin stabilized – is that correct?
Those DIY rockets look like they are made from auto exhaust system components. Is that the propellent hanging out the back with a string fuse, like wile e coyote junk. Very crude. They are not similar to the obviously standardized and manufactured Ghouta rockets that have been seen in use by the Syrian regime for a long time. There are many videos of Ghouta type rockets that have been fired into rebel territory and videos of regime goons firing them. Where are the videos of rebels with Ghouta type rockets and the launchers?
I am not going to wade through this crap again, but I think you will find more relevant videos linked here. And the article is good. But you got your mind made up so don’t bother to look:
You refuse to see the holes in Postal’s story. What about the freaking 140 mm rockets that he just ignores? Try to explain that. I bet you can’t. I’ll say it again, what about the 140 mm rockets? And the mobile Falaq launchers that could have driven within 2 km of the impact sites. Postal has nothing but his impressions of photos and videos and his guesswork.
There is a video I posted above that by my well informed analysis shows a Syrian regime Ghouta type rocket flying about 2.4 km. And I am pretty sure that I could get more distance out of it. Maybe not, but 2.4 km is enough to prove Postal is a fool. And since he ignores a great deal of crucial evidence how can you think he has got his conclusion so freaking right? He knows he’s right and everybody else is lying so they can bomb somebody. The clown is hysterical. You wouldn’t accept that kind of slipshod and dishonest crap in climate science. Postal has an axe to grind and you are helping him grind it. OUT.
you seem to acknowledge my original point, but yell about it. You say that your analysis shows Ghouta type rocket flying about 2.4 km. Fine.
That refutes the HRW, New York Times and US intel assessment maps, which originated east Ghouta rockets in regime military installations in the center of Damascus.
That shows that claims in the intel assessment to know the precise trajectories of the chemical rockets was untrue.
It doesn’t prove the opposite – that it was a false flag attack by opposition. I didn’t say this. However, it necessarily reduces the confidence of attribution.
Steve, you say “The rea on why “west Ghouta” – do you mean south Ghouta – results are little analysed is the apparent absence of sarin in local environmental samples.”
###
I believe that the reason why the west Ghouta sarin attack lacks controversy is because it was obviously and indisputably committed by the Syrian government, hence no “analysis”. The east Ghouta attack used rockets that lend themselves to theoretical discursions of range and trajectory. Postol’s hypothcating depends on assumptions and parameters that are easily disputed. His arguments are weak and tenuous but yet these servers to obfuscate.
Also, “It’s a while since I looked at this data, but the story is much more complicated than you and Don assume.”
#####
It is only complicated if you focus on the east Ghouta attack and ignore the west Ghouta attack. That the rebels had sarin and the means to weaponize it is speculation.
again there were no “west” Ghouta attacks. Little rocket evidence in Moadamiyeh- suggestions that victims in Moadamiyeh came from Zamalka area, as closer hospital capacity filled.
So, like Postal, you still insist on ignoring the 140 mm rockets. Nice work. I am reading from the official White House report on our intelligence and conclusions on the Ghouta attack. Have you read it:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21
“Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack.”
Do you see the part where it says the rocket launches came from “regime controlled territory”. It does not say that East Ghouta rockets came from regime military installations in the center of Damascus. The map doesn’t show that either. Where did you get that story? Postal Mann? Is there some other official report or other map? Your original point is no point at all, unless you got some evidence to support it. It seems you want to disbelieve everything except what Postal says, which is based on his eyeballing some photos and making assumptions tainted with misinterpretation or outright misrepresentation of the actual evidence.
Have you read the U. N. report? Look at Appendix 5. It supports the rockets coming from regime territory. While you are at it, find some less crude home made rockets from the rebel side that actually look like the rockets used in the Ghouta attack. How about a 350 mm launcher, or two? And find some evidence that the rebels have the capability to make sufficient “high quality” sarin for the attack. We will take your word for it, if you want to claim the rebels have the necessary expertise and equipment to load and launch the sarin without killing themselves first.
I recall seeing estimates of distance in this type of video based on time – resulting in estimate of 2 km or so. But don’t have reference at hand.
Do your own analysis. Looks to me like the flash from impact is at 17 sec and the sound at 24. You do the math.
I have another comment in moderation. I am out of here so do with it as you please. I hope you go back to messing with climate scientists.
Steve, the photo I saw showed fins set at an angle inside an annulus which device would impart spin. I know that a spin stabilizer is superior aerodynamics, but that most rockets have fin stabilization. I cannot recall the reference of that, so the point now is the ring reinforcing added to the fins which characterized the SAA rockets in the videos.
. What about the 140 mm katusha rockets of west Ghouta. Do you claim those for the opposition?
Steve: “I took a couple of screenshots showing rockets: they are not identical in measurements, but are no more and no less complicated than the Ghouta rockets.”
He doesn’t have a clue. Those rockets look like they were made with used auto exhaust system parts, in a muffler shop. And of course like Postal Mann he ignores completely the M-14 140 mm rockets. Here is a motor of an M 14 the UN found at the Ghouta site:
No fins. It is stabilized by the gases from the slightly angled exhaust ports. Look at about 30 seconds you should be able to see the holes are angled to impart spin.
I havent thought about 140 mm rockets in Moadamiyeh. Issue in Moadamiyeh is whether there was a chemical attack in Moadamiyeh at all, or whether patients in local hospitals came there in dispersion from east Ghouta.
Eyewitness account of rocket attack in WEST Ghouta:
One rocket hit around 5 a.m. We were praying in the mosque near the turbi area 400 meters away [from the strike site]. We heard the strike and went to the site to help the wounded. We thought it was a regular rocket but when we got there someone was screaming “Chemical! Chemical!” The rocket fell in the first floor of a four-story apartment building. Everyone in the building died in their sleep. It didn’t cause a lot of destruction…It made an opening in the wall. After the person was screaming, people covered their faces, with shirts dunked in water. We didn’t smell anything,[4] but people were fainting. I covered my face with a shirt dunked in water and was rescuing people and taking them to the medical center…If anyone entered the building where the rocket fell they would faint.[5]
####
From Human Rights Watch on i-net
I’m not claiming anything for or against the opposition. Everyone seems determined to not understand the precise point that I was making.
Even if the regime launched the east Ghouta 350 mm rockets from 2.4 km to the north (as opposed to opposition launching them from 2 km to the north), HRW, NYT and US intel claims to have detected east Ghouta rockets from their origin in central Damasus to east Ghouta are refuted. Nothing to do with 140 mm rockets.
How about the fact that the 140 mm rockets have a range of up to 10 km and could have reached the targets from central Damascus? Nobody said all the rockets came from central Damascus. And the official U.S report does not say that any of the rockets were launched from central Damascus. I helped you by finding where that story came from:
“A major argument US officials used to bolster their assessment was the rockets’ point of origin.
“We know where the rockets were launched from,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement to the media on Aug. 30. “We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods.”
Four days later, in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he reiterated his claim.
“We are certain that none of the opposition has the weapons or capacity to effect a strike of this scale, particularly from the heart of regime territory,” Kerry said.
But the “heart” was a minimum of 6 kilometers (3.7 miles) from the impact site. This is impossible, Postol and Lloyd say, adding that the Obama administration could not have been as sure as it claimed.”
Lurch Kerry was speaking off the cuff and likely with some hyperbole when he said “from the heart of regime territory”. And again, that statement does not exclude the 140 mm rockets coming from the “heart of regime” territory.
So your assertion that “the U.S. intel claims to have detected east Ghouta rockets from their origin in central Damascus are refuted” is refuted. The 140 mm rockets could have reached the targets in Ghouta from central Damascus. Do you get it now?
are you arguing that 140 mm rockets were used against both east Ghouta (Zamalka) and south(Moadamiyeh)? Contemporary reports said 140 mm rockets hit Moadamiyeh and 350 mm rockets hit Zamalka? BTW does it make sense to you that they would use two different types of rocket from the same location in central Damascus?
You are really something. I never said that any rockets were fired from “central Damascus”. My point was that if you characters want to insist rockets were claimed to have been fired from “central Damascus” then the 140 mm rockets that you want to ignore have the required range.
Are you reading these comments? The U.S. intel report published by the White House didn’t say that rockets were fired from “central Damascus”. I gave you a link to the official report above. Are you paying any attention here? I gave you the money quote, from the official report:
“Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack.”
“rocket launches from regime controlled territory” That is not ambiguous. It doesn’t say anything about central or Damascus. It says regime controlled territory. Now call the intel community liars for saying the rockets came from central Damascus. Never mind that they didn’t say it. Call them liars anyway. Postal will back you up with his misrepresentations and calculations.
All of the rockets picked up by the investigators were in regular use by the Syrian regime and had ranges sufficient to reach the targets from “regime controlled territory”. Use your head. The rockets are fired from mobile launchers that can park in any freaking alley and let loose in seconds and run away. They could drive right up to the front line. Why would they have to fire from central Damascus? Central Damascus is a red herring. Fegget about it. End of story.
Another comment in moderation. But it is not something that I have not already pointed out in great detail, only to be ignored by Steve who clings to the “central Damascus” red herring. I am getting a bad feeling that this blog has jumped the shark.
The recent revelations of Donna Brazile pointing out that Clinton manipulated the Democratic party and the primary process again emphasize the fake nature of the outrage over the supposed Russian interference in the Presidential election. As I have pointed out before, the US has interfered in many foreign elections — the most recent being Obama trying to influence the Brexit election. So, it is very hypocritical to feign outrage over anything that Russia may have done to influence the US election, particularly when the legacy media was extremely biased against Trump.
Now it becomes apparent that Clinton’s “victory” in the Democratic primary process was substantially tainted and that she may not have any standing to complain about claimed Russian intervention. Additionally, the fake outrage over claimed Russian disinformation is shown to be silly by the media’s quick and false analysis of Brazil’s revelations. See https://theintercept.com/2017/11/05/four-viral-claims-spread-by-journalists-on-twitter-in-the-last-week-alone-that-are-false/
The Intercept states: “There is ample talk, particularly of late, about the threats posed by social media to democracy and political discourse. Yet one of the primary ways that democracy is degraded by platforms such as Facebook and Twitter is, for obvious reasons, typically ignored in such discussions: the way they are used by American journalists to endorse factually false claims that quickly spread and become viral, entrenched into narratives, and thus, can never be adequately corrected.”
JD
You are correct on several points, jdd. But it doesn’t seem sporting to equate Obama’s open advocacy for one side in the Brexit referendum with what is likely the surreptitious and illegal Russian hacking of our political institutions.
I am so happy that the DNC and Podesta emails came to light, no matter who done it. If the same thing had happened to Trump, I would be very, very sad and screaming for an all out nuclear attack on Stalinist KGB dictator Putinski. It always depends on whose ox has been gored.
DM Clearly foreign intervention in US elections is a negative matter — as is foreign spying. However, I don’t think there is any way to stop it; unfortunately, it is just part of the international landscape. The only practical way to deal with it is through the political process. Obama had information pertaining to this issue and chose not to pursue it in an aggressive way. (Maybe because it would have led to unmasking information) In any event, to the extent that any candidate does collude with a foreign government, he is taking a huge political risk. The only way to deal with it is in a political manner and expose the person alleged to have colluded. If Russia or some other country decides that it wishes to try to influence US elections, there is little we can do to stop it directly.
To the extent that Clinton complains of the illegal release of accurate documents, that is a partly legitimate argument. However, when Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon papers, there was little moral condemnation of his actions. Same with respect to the release of Trump’s tax return. Unfortunately, the release of the docs of political people has become part of the landscape of American politics. The only real solution is to keep your docs secure or possibly limit your use of emails.
JD
Other agencies seem to have had reservations about the quality of information that CIA’s Brennan originally presented to Obama. My reading of subsequent events is that other agencies decided to acquiesce with Brennan’s information, as opposed to additional more conclusive information becoming available. The decision of the intel community to provide evidence-absent assessments makes it impossible to know which is true.
My surmise is that Brennan’s original “bombshell” information on Putin’s involvement was merely early memoranda from the Steele dossier (perhaps laundered through GCHQ). If so, the eventual intel assessment on Putin involvement is based on very thin gruel. This wouldn’t show the opposite. However, it would prevent claims to assess with “high confidence”.
This position is held by, for example, Jeffrey Carr – and is very distinct from being a Putin “apologist”.
My initial interest request for Mann’s data came during the Iraq invasion, where I thought that the evidence deserved to be severely cross-examined. I compared my analysis of Mann’s hockey stick to that of a CIA analyst challenging whether Powell’s aluminum tube was evidence of WMD or merely an aluminum tube with some other use. My challenging of evidence of DNC hack or Syrian chemical attacks is in precisely the same spirit and does not warrant accusations of being a “Putin” apologist. As some of you make such claims, I’ve been consulting pro bono on mining case against a Russian oligarch who abused Canadian securities law.
Which agencies had reservations? I have commented here about 90 eleven times that the FBI had notified the DNC in September of 2015, that they were under attack by Russian hackers. And they gave them continuing warnings up to the time the DNC finally announced they had been hacked. The FBI got that info from the NSA/CYBERCOM. September of 2015, was a long time before the Steele dossier became a factor. Why don’t you lay out what it is you are talking about. You don’t seem to be willing to back up what you are saying. Do you think that the U.S. intel agencies just make it up as they go along? Oh, Iraq WMDs. Saddam Hussein wanted his enemies to believe he had WMDs. He convinced several intelligence services that he had them. He’s dead now.
Which agencies had reservations?
What evidence do you have to support your “reading” that the agencies with alleged reservations just acquiesced with Brennan’s information?
Do you seriously believe that Russian regime hackers have not routinely attacked U.S. government, political and business computer systems and that Stalinist KGB dictator Putin is not aware of all that?
The intel agencies are not going to show you the evidence. It is not their job to show you evidence. They show the evidence to their boss. I am pretty sure they don’t care what about your surmising.
I have learned one thing from these recent discussions. Stalinist KGB dictator Putinski, his puppet Yanukovych, and his protege Bashar are innocent little lambs.
“Innocent little lambs”
### #### ####
Nope. Innocent little goats.
Steve wrote and Don questioned: “Other agencies seem to have had reservations about the quality of information that CIA’s Brennan originally presented to Obama.”
I think this became obvious this spring when the FBI began delivering their evidence to the intelligence committees. IMO, the information must have been deeply concerning, but far from conclusive – otherwise one side or the other would have proclaimed vindication. Everyone seems to be waiting to see what confirmation Mueller’s “goons” (as some inappropriately call them) can get out of Manafort, Flynn, and others.
As soon as the Steele dossier began to circulate, the Russians could have obtained a copy and immediately cut connections – if there ever were any – with anyone it mentioned. If so, why did Flynn and Kushner talk with Kislyak after the election? Well, at that point, they weren’t involved in any collusion to get Trump elected; they were the administration-elect answering questions about Obama’s new sanctions. Whatever the truth about allegations of collusion, Putin’s attempts to interfere in our election has damaged everyone associated with Trump friendly enough to meet with them.
Don wrote: “The intel agencies are not going to show you the evidence. It is not their job to show you evidence.”
When Congress or the President requests it, intelligence agencies do release reports to the public. The NIE on WMD in Iraq was an example – a poor example since if was done in a rush.
I am not sure what you are getting at, Frank. Something becoming obvious etc etc.
The evidence that Steve wants is evidence that has not been released in reports. In other words, neither Congress nor the President has authorized it’s release. And Congress does not have the authority to release information classified by the agencies, unless they get permission from the classifying authorities.
jjdohio wrote (in part): “So, it is very hypocritical to feign outrage over anything that Russia may have done to influence the US election”
However, every time secrets are disclosed, the embarrassed party always rages against “politically-motivated leaks” or “disclosures”. When Comey informed Congress (as he promised in response to a question) that the HRC email investigation had been reopened. this action was “politically motivated”. This is a standard tactic of politicians – try to discredit the message by questioning the motivation of the messenger.
I believe the feigned outrage associated with the DNC/Podesta leaks would have dissipated long ago except for two factors:
1) The possibility of collusion or worse – quid pro quo. If anyone in the Trump camp encouraged the Russians to release the emails, then they solicited a valuable campaign contribution from a foreign adversary. Our election laws ban any contributions from foreigners and the solicitation of such contributions. Contributions are defined as anything of valuable, not just money. Quid pro quo would be illegal even if a donation came from the US; and approaches treason in this case.
2) The timing of the WL disclosures (a few days before the convention and piecemeal throughout October) proves that the timing of the disclosures WAS politically motivated. Either Assange had political motivations or the Russians supplying Assange had political motivations or someone else supplying Assange had political motivations. (Perhaps a disillusioned Sanders supporter inside the DNC could have caused the DNC leak; but that still leaves the Podesta leak which began with spear-fishing (at the end of March?) and release in October.)
jddohio wrote: “The only real solution is to keep your docs secure or possibly limit your use of emails”.
Other presidential candidates have released their tax returns. Anyone politician who writes an email should be smart enough to recognize that it could be leaked. The “only real solution” is to live a life that will allow the public to trust you. Those who rage against leaks the most generally have the most to hide.
Don says: “I have commented here about 90 eleven times that the FBI had notified the DNC in September of 2015, that they were under attack by Russian hackers.”
Russia hacks to collect foreign intelligence — True. Russia hacks and trolls in active measures operations — True. Russia holds out dangles or honey traps to recruit (by corruption) unwitting foreign targets — True. Did the Trump campaign bite on the traps beyond the one meeting to hear the offer? No evidence yet. Did the Russians hand the emails to WL? Was Guccifer 2.0 a Russian agent? Conflicting evidence.
Do others besides Russia have the means an motive to hack and do active measures, including HRC? Who does Donna Brazile fear more, Russian snipers or …?
Did the Steele dossier influence the NSA to conclude that Russia was hacking the DNC as far back as September 2015? Is Russian hacking just a myth created by the Steele dossier? Does anybody in his or her right mind believe that the intelligence community and the Commander in Chief’s belief that the hacking was the Russians is based on the Steele dossier? Is Stalinist KGB dictator Putinski an innocent lamb, who would never hack the DNC and would not even dream of interfering in our elections?
Don, active measures ops always depend upon an effective false flag. The most plausible false flag is to frame somebody who is already guilty to a lesser degree. In this case even Putin admits that he meddles. His defense is simply that the US does it too. The question here is not whether Putin is a lamb or was capable of meddling but if Russia state assets were responsible for the WL, DC leaks and Guciffer 2.0, which the later clearly was working to weaken the credibility of the leaks. Russia is not the only suspect in meddling. And, we can see that the Trump-Russia collusion potential was clear to Clinton in March of 2016 since Podesta had consulted with Manafort in the Uranium One deal and knew of his Russian ties. It is not that much of a stretch that the Clintons would want to investigate Russia-Trump collusion. The question is whether they just looked for evidence, were seen as eager to buy false evidence, or actively paid for false evidence. The forensic patterns of the DNC hacks, the DNC’s reactions and actions of G2 look suspicious. Clinton and DNC (who Clinton controlled, according to Donna Brazile), had the means, motive and predisposition to do more than lay as a passive victims.
I posed four related questions there, Ron. This one is central:
Does anybody in his or her right mind believe that the intelligence community and the Commander in Chief’s belief that the hacking was the Russians is based on the Steele dossier?
I don’t believe you answered the question. I asked the question, because Steve commented:
“My surmise is that Brennan’s original “bombshell” information on Putin’s involvement was merely early memoranda from the Steele dossier (perhaps laundered through GCHQ). If so, the eventual intel assessment on Putin involvement is based on very thin gruel. This wouldn’t show the opposite. However, it would prevent claims to assess with “high confidence”.”
When I was in the active measures ops game, we always depended more on the active imaginations of clueless onlookers creating illusions of false flags. They made up stuff we would have never thought of. Sort of like crowdsourcing. Saved us a lot of time and effort. Nowadays with all the cranks on the internet, I doubt that the active measures folks would bother with false flags at all.
I am repeating below a comment in moderation without the suspected words an experiment.
“Does anybody in his or her right mind believe that the intelligence community and the Commander in Chief’s belief that the hacking was the Russians is based on the Steele dossier?”
The US IC reports they are going by Crowdstrike and other sources. We can only guess what the other sources are. As you know intelligence is highly compartmentalized, so when we say US IC for all we know we may be talking about one Dem motivated analyst. You are asking us to trust the government when I know you have do not trust the recent climate assessment report. What is the difference? You trust the US IC more than the NASA’s Goddard Institute why?
Don, you point out that you have some knowledge of how the intelligence game works. Don’t you think the Clintons do also? She knows that once one hacking is attributed to the Russians that all hacking will be attributed the same. When your agency depends on public confidence you don’t burden them with domestic black op speculation. The only reason the Trump-Russia collusion story works is because Trump is not accepted by the government as part of their brand.
Ron asked: “Don, you point out that you have some knowledge of how the intelligence game works. Don’t you think the Clintons do also? She knows that once one hacking is attributed to the Russians that all hacking will be attributed the same.”
If HRC understood anything about hacking, she wouldn’t have used an email server (nearly unprotect at first) in her home. HRC had never even USED a PC while she was at the DoS or email when she was a Senator. She started using a Blackberry for email in 2007 or 2008 while running against Obama. The email server was originally for Bill’s use in connection with the CGI. Both Clintons have lived in a world where technology (perhaps even the Xerox copier or printer) was handled by various secretaries and assistants.
Frank, your logic: that one needs to be tech savvy in cyber-security to understand hacking, and that one needs to understand hacking if it is part of an active measures op using it in order to understand the schemes of political intrigue, I find vapor thin stretch.
“Does anybody in his or her right mind believe that the intelligence community and the Commander in Chief’s belief that the hacking was the Russians is based on the Steele dossier?”
The US IC reports they are going by Crowdstrike and other sources. We can only guess what the other sources are. As you know intelligence is highly compartmentalized, so when we say US IC we may be talking about one Hillary supporter for all we know. You are asking us to trust the government when I am sure you have do not trust the recent climate assessment report. What is the difference? You trust the US IC more than the NASA’s Goddard Institute why?
Don, you point out that you have some knowledge of how the intelligence game works. Don’t you think that Hillary does also? She knows that once one hacking is attributed to the Russians that all hacking will be attributed the same. When your agency depends on the public trust you don’t burden them with government conspiracy speculation. The only reason the Trump-Russia collusion story works is because Trump is not accepted by the government as part of their brand.
I have read the U.S. intel agencies reports and they don’t mention Crowdstrike and they don’t say they are going by Crowdstrike. You made that up, or you are repeating some foolishness you got from Steve or somebody else. It’s false. False. Not true.
I left a link on one of these recent threads that describes in great detail the signal intel and cyptoanalysis capabilities of the NSA. That is how the Russia connection was discovered. The NSA had detected Russian attacks on the DNC in July of 2015 and monitored the activity in real time, until it was ended in June 2017. They don’t need to see the servers. They see everything going in and coming out and they know where it is coming from and where it is going. Period. I have repeated this many times and it doesn’t sink in. You all would rather believe that the thousands of analysts in various gazillion dollar intel agencies are depending on Crowdstrike. They are all incompetent and/or dishonest chumps. Yeah, and the blah blah blah Iraq WMDs prove it. foolishness
It’s also foolish to equate this story with NASA Goddard blah blah blah. I am surprised you said that. It’s silly. foolishness
I have also said several times that I did not believe the intel reports from Obama’s stooges. I have also said many times the tell is that now Commander in Chief Trump, who never wanted to believe it was Russia because the dims are trying to hang Russia around his neck, now believes it was Russia. The reason he now believes is that his own people are in charge of the intel agencies and he has seen the evidence for himself. I know some of those people and I know what’s going on. And I am done with this foolishness. You characters believe what you want to believe. A lot of brains going to waste here. sad
comment went to moderation
whatever
i am done here
“The NSA had detected Russian attacks on the DNC in July of 2015 and monitored the activity in real time, until it was ended in June 2017.”
I would be interested in seeing your source on that. Call me skeptical.
I do not discard the possibility that it was all Russia, including Guccifer 2.0, but if it was I don’t accept that it was sloppy rogue groups unaware of each other. Although I readily agree that one can be tech savvy and also be an idiot in conducting an op. But G2 would have had to be a uncontrolled rogue agent and that does not ring plausible considering the context. But if the point of the op was to create division and chaos in the US we have now that might be giving Putin too much credit.
Trump: 11/11/2017 “I believe Putin” and how about that Don [de]Mon[t]fort and his positive assertions on the Russian (supposed) hacking of the DNC?
You never indicate where you get your cherry picked partial alleged quotes from, little dude. Where did Trump say “I believe Putin” didn’t do the hacking? I hope you didn’t just make that up. What I find that you could deliberately misconstrue to mean that Trump believes Putinski is an innocent lamb is this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5072579/Trump-says-Putin-DENIED-meddling-2016-election.html#ixzz4y92PqgAf
“‘Every time he sees me he says, “I didn’t do that,” and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it,’ the president said.”
He doesn’t say he believes Putinski’s denial. He is just giving the Stalinist KGB dictator a face saving crumb, because he wants to get something out of the little rascal.
“‘And I’m not saying it wasn’t Russia,’ Trump continued. ‘What I’m saying is that we have to protect ourselves no matter who it is. You know, China is very good at this. I hate to say it, North Korea is very good at this.'”
“‘If we had a relationship with Russia – North Korea, which is our single biggest problem right now, North Korea – it would be helped a lot,’ he said.”
“‘President Putin could be tremendously helpful with North Korea,’ Trump added.
Trump said the North Korea nuclear crisis affects ‘millions and millions of lives. This isn’t baby stuff. This is the real deal. And if Russia helped us in addition to China, that problem would go away a lot faster.'”
Watch the January 11, news conference. That’s all I have for you. You are dishonest.
Read back through my comments and you will find it, Ron. Or google it. I am done with you.
Don, I am sure you are aware that the US IC report on the 2016 election hacking reports no sources, at least in their declassified version. So with revealing your sources are you saying you have reason to believe that the NSA monitored all the hacking of the DNC and have complete confidence in attribution without any reliance on Crowdstrike?
If you say it is so I will accept that. You could leave it there but I am also curious if any Senate or House committee members have seen or hears of the evidence that you have.
By the way, thank you again for your service to our country in Vietnam and since.
Don, I meant to write could you confirm that you have classified info without revealing your sources. (And please do not if they are.)
Note the DNC’s tip from the feds was simply referring to “The Dukes” or Cozy Bear. There was no specific mention of Russians. And, there is no mention of FSB in the DNI report. The DNI Report, however attributes the GRU. This led me to believe they were weighing Crowdstrike as their source.
If you are correct and the NSA was monitoring the DNC from July 2015, to June 2016, under what authority? Do they monitor all political campaigns now? If so why did they need a FISA warrant to surveil the Trump campaign?
You could have googled it, Ron:
“FBI NSA warned DNC in september 2015 russia hacking” or anything like it
If you want to understand and discuss these things intelligently, you need to read and pay attention. I don’t have the time or the inclination to keep repeating myself. NSA has statutory authority to detect and monitor foreigners hacking U.S targets. It’s their job. If I thought it would improve your ongoing ability to get what I am talking about, I would search through the previous comments to find the one where I gave you a link to a very authoritative article on the NSA capabilities and activities. Or you could look for it if you were sufficiently interested.
The intel agencies don’t need Crowdstrike to help them. And they don’t need the Steele dossier to find out what Putinski is up to. Seems like some of these characters here think the CIA, NSA et al. have to rely on a former limey spook to supply them with rumors on what’s going on in Russia. It’s a lot easier for them to gather intel in Russia now than it was during the Cold War. Russia is much more open, with a lot more active opposition to the powers that be and the security apparatus is just a poor stepchild of the Soviet state security services.
Keep it coming, painter. But I bet I am not the only who can see that you are talking a lot but saying nothing. Did you notice that Iran is still in Syria? Please tell us how the Big Orange Fella and his coalition is going to get them out. (now watch him squirm)
mpainter: “Take out Iran , all is resolved favorably. Is it not obvious?” Only if you smoke the same stuff as Nethanyahu and believe that once Shia Iran is out of the picture, the Sunni world keeps on ignoring Israel- that other non Sunni (+non Arab) blot on Ummah central.
Ron commented: “Frank, your logic: that one needs to be tech savvy in cyber-security to understand hacking, and that one needs to understand hacking if it is part of an active measures op using it in order to understand the schemes of political intrigue, I find vapor thin stretch.”
HRC didn’t use email in the White House or the Senate, and only used it on a Blackberry during her 2007-8 campaign against Obama. In 2009, she because SoS and didn’t want to use anything but the Blackberry. Tech savvy in cyber-security? Had she ever run a google search? Bought something from Amazon?
Ask an older person who has been using email for only two years what they understand about servers and email security. (I bought my college graduate in-laws their first computer when they were somewhat older than HRC.)
That is ridiculous, Frank. She had a big controversy at State because she wanted to carry her unsecured blackberry into the SCIF area of the State Dpt. She asked for a secure device like the Predient had and was turned down. There were people at State that pointed out her use of private server was a no no.. They were told to shut TF up. I have mentioned this before. She was instructed on secure comm when she came to State. She knew better, Frank. Everybody seems to get this except you. You certainly don’t want to be a t the bottom of this crowd, do you Frank. You need to get up to speed.
Don, surely you don’t think the NSA does anything more than the ability to monitor the known IP addresses associated with hacking. Monitoring is limited to known fingerprints to match against, and state sophisticated actors can continually create new ones. using known fingerprints in a new sophisticated attack exposes either a an accident or intentional false flag. If the US IC has human intel (humint) that is unknowable. You are free to have faith that there is accurate humint.
Frank, I understand and agree that HRC was slow to adopt tech. (Bill doesn’t even use email he says.) I don’t see her tech skills as being relevant to the potential charges and suspicions of ill actions facing her.
1) HRC evaded the Federal Records Act by using private email.
2) HRC showed a premeditated plan to avoid the potential for later enforcement of the act by setting up a private server.
3) HRC put her personal interest above maintaining national security and complying with the the Records Act.
4) Her low regard for security is demonstrated by the paltry sum spent on security compared to the millions she was raking in from selling influence and laundering the remuneration through speaking fees and CGI donations.
5) HRC undermined the security of the SCIF placing in her residence at public expense.
6) HRC knew that Congress had subpoenaed her emails and stayed silent for years, along with her former colleagues at the DoS, while Congress waited.
7) When HRC’s private use of email was discovered from the hacker Guccifer’s publishing of HRC adviser Sidney Blumenthal’s emails containing HRC private emails. HRC still failed to turn over all her private emails to DoS for review as required by law. HRC allowed years to pass after she left office without turning them over. By March 2015, Congress to determined HRC never had a government email address while SoS.
After years and hundreds of news stories and under under active subpoena HRC either secretly ordered emails destroyed or passively allowed then to be. This is not a complicated story. The only complexities are how many laws did HRC break and how to prosecute.
Now Don, considering the above context, and HRC’s character profile, and that former DNC acting Chair Donna Brazile this week revealed HRC controlled all the administration of the DNC during the spring of 2016, I think there are some valid suspicions.
1) Donna Brazile’s revelation makes more significant of a fact I found through personal research that the DCCC and HRC campaign shared the same network IT consultant, MIS Department Inc. All three also called in the same cyber security, Crowdstrike, when they found themselves under cyber attack. The DNC’s story is that they brought in Crowdstrike from their law firm referral now seems like a cover for the fact that CS was already hired, or at least the obvious choice.
2) We now know that HRC knew that Trump had a Russia vulnerability by March 30, the day Trump hired Paul Manafort, who had done extensive consulting for the Podesta Group during the Uranium One deal.
3) We now know that HRC hired Fusion GPS in April and funded the Russian dossier. It is unclear if the FBI, Mother Jones and John McCain were made aware of HRC’s funding of the dossier when they were handed it.
4) Something convinced the Obama IC to surveil the Trump campaign.
5) Does Occam’s razor favor HRC being passive in all of this?
I know what the NSA does, Ron. And if you had any real interest in this subject other than being a casual, silly kibitzer you would have better informed yourself by now. You don’t have a clue. It’s not like I haven’t been trying to help you. You should just shut up.
Here is some more for Frank’s education:
Click to access c05833708.pdf
I hope you have the time and interest to read it, Frank. I hope you are not just another lazy casual kibitzer.
HRC couldn’t even remember her social security number in 2009 (not filled in).
One law for the plebs, another for the 1%.
Don comments: Ron, “…You don’t have a clue… you should shut up.”
Sorry, that you are feeling ganged up on regarding the basic premise of Steve’s series of blogs on the 2016 US election hacking. Your assertion that Trump accepts that Russia was responsible for G2 and WL as active measures I would question. The quotes in the article you cited above bring the matter into question considering Trump is under extreme pressure by being in a wedge between his own IC and his attempt to believe Putin on this point.
From the article:
WTF? The Bush CIA director is tweeting regarding the current US IC assessment on a question before the current President? For who, the MSM, Trump or his own satisfaction?
This is major stuff. It appears the government does not accept Trump as our President. There is a real resistance to the Trump presidency and we have no idea how far it goes in the GOP, let alone the opposition party.
If the US IC are not able to present their evidence against Russia on WL and G2 they should shut up.
Trump should declassify the classified assessments so that people can see. I am very dubious that the classified intel assessments disclose anything that the Russians don’t already know.
You are funny, Ron. I don’t see a gang. I see a bunch of uninformed and ill-informed characters who think that the gazillion dollar U.S. intel community is relying on Crowdstike and the Steele dossier. It’s bizarre.
Trump doesn’t believe Putinski. He is trying to play a double game and I hate to say it, but he is looking foolish on this one. I don’t think he is going to flatter and schmooze Stalinist KGB dictator Putinski into changing his spots. But I will admit that as I traveled around at my own expense working to get that joker elected I almost gave up several times when he made some really dumb unforced errors. I didn’t give up, he didn’t stop doing dumb things and the rest is history. Maybe he can fool Putinski. Anyways, I think he will get it together and serve two terms. The Fed is projecting another 3% GDP quarter. People will forget all this Russia crap after a year of solid growth.
And I don’t care what the Bush CIA has been tweets. Trump is in control of the intel community and basically on the same page. And the troops love him. Don’t believe everything you read in the newspapers, or on twitter. Trump rules!
You should take up serious drinking, Ron. Forget about this stuff. It’s too complicated for you. Just funnin you, Ron.
Don, if the essence of your argument is that a gazillion dollars funding a close knit group of experts guarantees unimpeachable output you are at the wrong blog.
I did not say anything about unimpeachable output, Ron. You made that up. Shame on you. My argument is that you don’t have a clue about what goes on in the intel community. You don’t know what they do and you don’t know who they are. They do not sit around waiting for a Crowdstrike or a Steele dossier to tell them what’s what. Anybody who believes that is a fool. I can’t help you any more, Ron.
I agree that Trump does not regard the assessment of the IC as final and fully reliable. No doubt that he has conferred closely with Pompeo regarding this. Interestingly, you are ready to abandon Trump simply because he does not share your idolization of the U.S. IC.
Don commented: “You [Ron] don’t know what they [US IC] do and you don’t know who they are. They do not sit around waiting for a Crowdstrike or a Steele dossier to tell them what’s what. Anybody who believes that is a fool.”
You make a good point, Don, intelligence collection is highly secretive work, presumably for the eyes and ears of those only who must know the truth. For all you and I know the US IC spies on all communications and knew about the hacks and WL and G2 in real time. They may already have presented their irrefutable proof with Trump. But Trump could be too paranoid to believe it. Or, Trump could believe it and be pretending not to in order to avoid confrontation with Putin. Or, he could believe it but not want to give the IC the satisfaction of knowing he believes them. The point is nobody can really know, even the President. Because the aim is to deceive the deceivers because they are worse than us. I hope I don’t sound crazy but that is where logic goes when you enter the world of intelligence in non-wartime.
The saddest thing is that the MSM and Congressman Adam Schiffty take the DNI reports as Gospel, but when you and I read the report we find it meatless. There is just Russia Today pointing out liberal media bias in US, which I think even the liberals agree is a true (unbiased) assessment.
Don, your presumption that I and others who disagree with you just don’t know anything about the IC is a convenient argument. I would like to point out there are many intelligence professionals, like VIPS who believe WL and G2 might not have been the Russians.
Steve:”Trump should declassify the classified assessments so that people can see. I am very dubious that the classified intel assessments disclose anything that the Russians don’t already know.”
Why would Trump declassify evidence that supports the assessment that Russia done it? He still wants to pretend it could have been a 400 lb kid in his parent’s basement. But if there was sufficient evidence to support it being some other actor, don’t you think he Trump get it out?
The standard for releasing classified information is never going to be what some guy in Canada thinks it ought to be. They don’t care about satisfying your curiosity. They don’t know for sure what the Russians already know, and even if they suspect the Russkies know something they are not going to release information that confirms it. It’s spook stuff. They don’t care if you understand what they are doing. They prefer that you don’t know.
You are really ignorant, painter. I worked my a$$ of for Trump while you were sitting at home on the couch eating bon bons and drinking beer. That doesn’t mean I have to blindly worship everything he does. He needs to be told when he is messing up. He is no longer just some New York billionaire playboy, who runs his own show and can do and say whatever he wants and then spend a little money to cover up his mistakes. He is not self-employed now. He works for the people.
Trump is smarter than you are willing to admit, certainly smarter than you and certainly better informed than you. If he has doubts about the Russian attribution it is fair to assume that such doubts are after he has conferred with Pompeo and others in the IC.
Ron Ron
Ron Ron Ron
Former intel folks are allowed to believe what they wish to believe. They can form little groups and make a lot of noise about what they believe. I would say about 95% of the ex-intel folks are not publicity hounds and just keep quiet. I would advise you to not put much importance on what the VIPS say, since they have not offered any real evidence to back up their guesswork. But I would be wasting my time, again.
Don: I read the secrecy agreement HRC signed in 1/22/09. It covers handling of classified material, but the vast majority (perhaps constituting gross negligence) of the “classified” material that had once been on her server was marked classified more than a year after HRC left the DoS (when that material was requested by Congress). HRC would presumably testify that, to her knowledge, the only classified email she received came via the classified email system in her office (which was handled by her staff); and that she didn’t understand that the email she received @clintonmail.com could be later marked classified and become a cause for sending her to jail.
According to the agreement, she received an unspecified “security indoctrination”. It doesn’t mention email or summarize the key lessons she was supposed to have learned about handling except that release of classified material requires approval.
According to Comey, the first email HRC received on her server that later needed to be classified to prevent its release came from David Petraus, someone completely familiar with classified material. Comey – possibly like you – dealt with intelligence generation under circumstance lives and the war against terror and Communism was a stake. He was appalled at the sloppy handling of classified material at the DoS.
According to Comey, the two vital factors in his decision not to recommend indictment were: 1) Mens rea (what was HRC thinking and intending when she committed potentially criminal acts). He flatly said the FBI had no evidence supporting her intent to disclose classified information*. 2) How had others been treated when they committed similar actions: repremand/lose security clearance/ firing or criminal indictment? He challenged his Congressional interrogators to find one case where someone was indicted based on similar facts**.
* The problem is that HRC intended to hide information from oversight, not disclosed it. If intent is a critical element, indict her for obstruction of justice and perjury.
** Similar facts??? You are not going to find anyone else with the audacity to use a private email server for all of their routine email outside the classified system. You are going to find a lot of people using private accounts (gmail etc) for convenience and to hide their communications. However, when it comes to mishandling classified information, no difference exists between using insecure @dos.gov, insecure @gmail.com, or insecure @clintonmail.com. The combination of audacity and negligence makes this case unique.
Grassley has obtained draft documents showing that the FBI was leaning towards indictment late in the investigation, perhaps until Pagliano? admitted that he had bleached the server knowing it was now under subpoena on his own initiative without prompting because he had forgotten to do so before subpoenas were received. It would be interesting to hear Comey testify about why his position appeared to evolve and whether that evolution influenced the generous cooperation agreements made with Clinton’s staff and Clinton. I find much of what happened near the end of the investigation disturbing.
Don, if you want to second guess Comey’s decision not to prosecute, you need to deal with the reality of the evidence the FBI was able to collect and how it would be used in court. Then you need to listen to the Republican Congressmen (most of whom are attorneys and at least one, Trey Gowdy, who was a prosecutor) cross-examine and challenge his decision. Then we will see how well Comey’s testimony survives the facts that emerge(d) later.
You don’t know what you are talking about, painter. But that doesn’t inhibit you at all.
The reality is that your infallible brilliant hero didn’t win in a landslide. A few hundred thousand votes here and there was the difference. He thought he was going to lose.
I was working my a$$ off in Michigan on my own dime and asking why he wasn’t spending some significant portion of his gazillion dollar fortune in the Midwest. He should have been literally throwing money at PA, WI, MI.
If I had that kind of dough and really wanted to be President, I would not have been pinching pennies with all the forces and resources that were arrayed against me. A major reason many of us supported him early on was the understanding that he would go all out in financing his campaign and not let Hillary outspend him. He lied. I love the man for saving the country from Hillary, but he ain’t a genius and he is not shy about being loose with the truth.
Yet you villify Trump like a Clinton Democrat, and why? Because he seeks better relations with Russia, just as he promised to do during the campaign. Tsk, tsk.
You are hysterical. I haven’t vilified Trump. I said he has saved the country. Try to pay attention. How many Clinton Democrats spent the better part of 4 months on the road at his own expense campaigning for the Big Orange Fella? (watch painter go crazy) You have done nothing but blindly worship him from afar, like a starstruck little fanboy. I am not in favor of kissing the a$$ of a Stalinist KGB dictator to try to foster better relations with Russia. And I don’t think it will be effective. Now run along.
Guys, guys, lets keep in mind that we are 95% on the same side politically. I watched a CSPAN SF book award this weekend honoring people who absolutely hated capitalism and coveted the progress toward socialists workers utopia. They would blame the evil west for the failure of the Soviet dream. Ironically, they surely dislike Putin and maybe even Stalin.
Anyway, we have different opinions because we have different experiences. Don has spent time with the US IC and sees them as hardworking patriots (I agree). Mpainter has worked with Russians and sees them as regular people, many of whom he presumably trusts. Let’s accept that both can be right.
Currently the US IC is under attack by the Shadow Brokers. Mike Morell says he does not believe it’s Russians since they would have no shared it. He says its worse than Snowden since these are the actual tools that Snowden only described. Assange and the Shadow Brokers are acting as whistle-blowers on behalf of the world as the world is surely identifies with the exposers rather than the exposed.
Don, we entered WWII with practically no military and an IC thrown together with the help of MI-6 and Wall Street’s foreign desks. We still won. The USA will hit more bumps without the CIA but we could be stronger and actually safer. Deceit pays off in the short run not long. Stuxnet will not be seen by our grandchildren as a success any more than we now see the Shah of Iran coup as one. Trump could shine as the first President to take on the CIA and provide a legacy of standing for true openness and world leadership by a complete ban on covert action. I am not saying anything different than President Harry Truman wrote in the WP a month after burying Kennedy.
As if Trump did not have better and more recent intelligence assessments of the so-called “Russian interference”. I suspect that eventually everything will be put in the light and the Democrats will take a pounding.
Limit CIA Role To Intelligence : http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman%27s%20CIA%20article.html
Don wrote: “I was working my a$$ off in Michigan on my own dime and asking why he wasn’t spending some significant portion of his gazillion dollar fortune in the Midwest. He should have been literally throwing money at PA, WI, MI.
If I had that kind of dough and really wanted to be President, I would not have been pinching pennies with all the forces and resources that were arrayed against me. A major reason many of us supported him early on was the understanding that he would go all out in financing his campaign and not let Hillary outspend him. He lied. I love the man for saving the country from Hillary, but he ain’t a genius and he is not shy about being loose with the truth.”
Don, have you considered the remote possibility that Trump didn’t have the gazillion dollars needed to outspend HRC? Obviously he has significant assets, but we don’t know whether they have been pledged as collateral to fund other projects. Many Trump Hotels are businesses mostly owned by others in which Trump has fractional ownership in return for some investment and the use of his name. To obtain $200M to $300M to self-finance on an equal or superior basis against HRC, he presumably would need to sell some assets (which one prefers not to do under pressure) or put up collateral that is not already encumbered to arrange financing.
This hypothesis would explain why Trump went begging to the Republican establishment to finance his underfunded operation against HRC (after bragging about self-financing the primaries, which were also underfunded by traditional measures), why he never released his tax returns, and why he has retained complete control of his assets. It’s probably unlikely, but with Trump one can never tell.
You have become quite tedious, Frank. Like painter. I have an MBA specializing in finance and investments. I had a career in investing and venture capital. I know how to make money and I know what people who have tons of it look like. I have spent some time evaluating Trump’s FEC financial disclosures as I sat around in hotel rooms late at night thinking about what I could do the next day to help the big orange fella get elected to save the country.
Fortune mag, or Forbes whoever guessed last year he had a net worth of about $4 billion. I think it’s several billion more than that. If I had half that much money and I cared about this country as much as he says he does, I would have been happy to spend $1 billion. How much would that leave me with, Frank?
Russia has a base in Afrin, protecting Syrian Kurds from the Turks. They did the same in the Manbij salient last March. This cooperation with the Kurdish forces (SDF and YPG) against the Turkish supported rebels is the fruit of Trump/Putin rapprochement. I believe that Trump’s pro-Russian policy will continue advantageously for the U.S. in the mideast.
Don: Sorry I’ve become tedious. I didn’t know you HAD looked into Trump’s disclosure statements (which I looked at after you told me what to look for). When you look at assets that are owned by LLC’s how does one know whether Trump owns essentially all of an asset (or has a silent partner) and whether that asset is serving as collateral for some other debt?
Don wrote: “If I had half that much money and I cared about this country as much as he says he does, I would have been happy to spend $1 billion.”
I do believe you’d spend the money, which is why I, like you, can’t understand why Trump didn’t self-fund or spend more on his campaign against HRC. Trump spent only $66M (2%?) of his own money in the campaign, so he appears to care for this country only about 1/25th as much as you (if you spent half of $2B).
http://fortune.com/2016/12/09/donald-trump-campaign-spending/
Trump believes his personal brand is worth perhaps $4B, which is why he thinks his net worth should be much higher than the $4B reported by Forbes and Fortune. Whatever value one assigns to his personal brand, its value is likely to increase far more than the $66M Trump personally invested in the race. Trump would have earned a profit by running for president even if he lost. HRC outspent Trump by $200M. (:))
History of controversy over Trump’s wealth. Most came in the last decade +, despite the the Great Recession.
http://gawker.com/donald-trumps-grossly-exaggerated-net-worth-a-timeline-1711718182
But now it has been revealed that the Russians have used a video game image as “proof” that the U.S. allowed a convoy of ISIS fighters to flee Raqqa. The cooperation does not seem to preclude a degree of rivalry. Funny how that video game picture multiplied on Twitter.
Trump has assembled a coalition of Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, Egypt, Jordan, and possibly some EU support with the purpose of evicting Iran from Syria. I predict the fall of Assad unless Putin gets aboard with Trump and weans him away from Iran. Hezbollah I predict will be exterminated. Eventually the malignant Islam of Iran will be confined to its borders.
You made my day, painter. So you recognize that the video game images from the Russkis is really a dumb move. That was the GRU. Same clowns who would never make a dumb mistake in trying cover up their hacking tracks.
And then another one. How about describing how Iran is going to be evicted from Syria. Is your infallible omnipotent hero going to do it with a magic wand? Are you talking about an Iraq type invasion? That is just about as likely as the magic wand. Well yeah, maybe the EU will help. And the Martians. Hezbollah will still be around when you are gone. You are writing cartoon plots. Thanks.
You’re welcome Don, but there is really no need to thank me as I am always glad to help you understand the intricacies of intelligence matters.
The present instance is a good example of a dumb mistake? Or a smart mistake for the sake of appearing dumb? Consider that GRU has plenty of photos unpublished of ISIS convoys but they eschewed all of these to use one that was publicly available and easily identified. Who do they think to fool? Perhaps you.
mpainter wrote: “Trump has assembled a coalition of Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, Egypt, Jordan, and possibly some EU support with the purpose of evicting Iran from Syria. I predict the fall of Assad unless …”
When Trump waves his magic wand and a Saudi Arabia-led Sunni coalition pacifies Yemen, I’ll begin dreaming that they might roll back Iran elsewhere. Unfortunately, the only place Trump’s magic wand actually works is in the minds of those mesmerized by his tweets. In the meantime, I’ll have nightmares about armed conflict between factions of the Saudi Royal family.
Yemen is not Syria. Trump has his personal ability, and those who sneer about magic wands obviously will never give him any credit. The whole swamp has set up a bellowing, hissing chorus against him and their groupies repeat it.
I give Trump credit for saving the country from Hillary et al. I give myself credit for recognizing his potential early on and supporting him throughout in spite of his obvious flaws. Trump is not going to evict Iran from Syria. That is just another of your comic book plots. The Stalinist KGB dictator Putin and Hezbollah and Iran have secured a great part of Syria for dictator Bashar and that is the name of that tune for the foreseeable future. Are you a treeper?
“Trump will not evict Iran from Syria”
### ### ###
Such little faith in Trump, tsk tsk.
I don’t have faith in anybody, except my wife and my son. And I keep a close eye on them. That is your problem. You blindly worship Trump. I love the Big Orange Fella with all his obvious faults. It’s fine for him to have a lot of useful idiots who will support him no matter what. But it would be dangerous for him to surround himself with such useless cartoon characters. He has enough sense to listen to the generals, rather than the cartoon characters who think that evicting Iran from Syria can be accomplished by forming a coalition. Hey, the Italians might help. And the Spanish, after they get that Catalunya thing settled. But give me your eviction plan and I’ll pass it on.
It’s clear that you are clueless on what’s going on in that part of the world. Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that Israel will not tolerate a permanent Iranian military presence in Syria. Either Iran leaves or there will be war. All Arab States are prepared to support Israel against Iran.
Putin has to choose sides. Trump’s diplomacy is aimed at a peaceful solution with Russian pressure brought on Syria. Thus the smiles and the blandishments to enlist Putin’s help, who is certainly in a position to help or hinder a diplomatic solution.
The Arab/Israel coalition is a remarkable achievement, owing to Trump. By this instrument Trump will expel Iran (and Hezbollah, via Israel) from the region, via diplomacy (Putin) or war. With Putin’s help Assad will oust Iran or be ousted himself.
Saudi Arabia has just declared that Lebanon has declared war against it. This is an expression of support for Israel (as when Israel makes war against Hezbollah, then SA & Israel become allies). Trump’s achievement.
mpainter writes: “Yemen is not Syria. Trump has his personal ability, and those who sneer about magic wands obviously will never give him any credit. The whole swamp has set up a bellowing, hissing chorus against him and their groupies repeat it.”
Let me revise my statement: When Trump’s “personal ability” produces a Saudi Arabia-led Sunni coalition pacifies Yemen, I’ll begin dreaming that they might roll back Iran elsewhere. Unfortunately, the only place Trump’s “personal ability” actually works is in the minds of those mesmerized by his tweets. In the meantime, I’ll have nightmares about armed conflict between factions of the Saudi Royal family.
Is that any better?
As best I can tell, Yemen is a bigger threat to Saudi Arabia than Hezbollah in Lebanon (and the regions of Syria that border Lebanon where Hezbollah is operating). No one knows where the changes in the House of Saud and their governance of Saudi Arabia (that Trump clearly has personally encouraged) are going to lead.
Frank, all links back to Iran. Take out Iran , all is resolved favorably. Is it not obvious?
House of Saud is not changed except for the crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood.Abdul Aziz ibn Saud had forty seven sons. Except for the first, all successors kings were through election by Al Saud (and the first, the eldest son, was dethroned by the other sons and Feisal installed in his stead). Just as the present kingdom and Crown Prince (an innovation, but not really because the kingdom was established through the partnership of Abdul Aziz and his father, with the father assuming a background role)
Frank, I note that you tempermentally are incapable of crediting Trump with any ability, and can only sneer at him.
FYI, I do not consult Trump’s Twitter. I gather facts from news reports and draw conclusions from these facts. I consider myself to be very well informed because of my diligence in this regard.
If you like, I can tell you how the recent earthquake can spell big trouble for the IRG, and Rouhani intends it so.
Hopefully painter will give us his cartoon level analysis on how the coalition is going to evict Iran from Syria. Maybe he could start with telling us how Netanyahu has helped his coalition partners the Saudis defeat the Iranian’s rag tag surrogates in Yemen, who are firing Iranian missiles at Riyadh. We would also like to know just when they are going to start kicking Iran out of Syria. Are they waiting for Iran and Hezbollah to occupy the whole country? We are also interested in knowing when Israel’s Arab allies are going to help Israel kick Hezbollah out of Lebanon, and kick Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc. etc. out of Gaza and the West Bank.
Come to think of it, I haven’t seen any evidence of any of that happening and Trump did not initiate the alleged alliance between Israel and some Arab nations. Calling it an alliance is just cartoon talk. It is an informal arrangement of convenience, with a single common interest, a form of detente that may never result in any significant military co-operation in a confrontation with Iran. I see no eagerness among painter’s cartoon coalition to go to war with Iran. They could have started yesterday, if they really wanted it.
Does not like to read the news, does moonfort:
Netanyahu yesterday: “Israel will act alone against Iran in Syria if necessary.”
Mossad chief today offers to share intelligence with Saudi Arabia.
But Israel will not have to act alone.
Did Netanyahu say when he is going to act, if necessary? Is he going to go through the Russkis to get to the Iranians, if necessary? Isn’t he worried at all about the tens of thousands of rockets and missiles that Hezbollah could loose on Israel, if they are ordered to do so by the Iranians, if necessary? It was very nasty the last time Israel had a fight with Hezbollah. Will be worse next time, if necessary. Might be wise to concentrate on defeating Hezbollah in Lebanon, before he talks about running the Iranians out of Syria, if necessary.
I know how the Israeli intel services share with their allies. That’s largely what convinced us of WMDs in Iraq. The Saudi’s would really be dumb to rely on Israeli intelligence. I love my Israeli friends, but I also know very well the Israeli defense/survival doctrine. Never again. They do whatever they think is necessary to protect themselves, by hook or by crook, and they don’t trust anybody. Google U.S.S. Liberty.
Now please regale us with the cartoon version of all that kicking Iran out of Syria war stuff. How is Netanyahu going to do it, if necessary? Is he going in soon, before Iranians are entrenched all over the freaking country? Entertain us. What do you think “if necessary” means? I guess it isn’t necessary now, or Bibi would be doing it. I think he is going to wait for the Iranians to acquire more of the Russki’s latest highly effective air defense systems to make the fight more interesting for the IAF. They get bored when it’s too easy. Now look for some more articles and put your comic book spin on them for us.
Causes his brow to furrow painfully, does that news. Macron now sees problems with the “no nukes” agreement with Iran. Over in GB buffoon Boris is cooking up causus belli against Iran over U.K. citizen sentenced to prison over cooked up spy charges. So EU now coming around. Poor moonfort does not understand this business of diplomacy and applying the screws to Iran. Trump can’t do it, he protests.
That is some pretty vague cartoonery there, painty. Iran must really be feeling the pressure. The screws are tightening. They are hurting real bad and getting ready to pull out of Syria, stop supporting their surrogates in Yemen who are rocketing Riyadh, cutting off Hezbollah and demanding that Hezbollah return all the rockets missiles and billions of dollars they have received from Iran over the years etc. etc. yatta yatta yatta. The Persian fanatic Ayatollahs are so screwed they are turning into pussycats. Giving up their centrifuges and ICBMs. They are so scared some are converting to Judaism. Trump is squashing them, bending them to his will. If only he could get the Republicans in Congress to behave half as well. Carry on with your blind slobbering hero worship, painty. It’s working well for you. And we are amused.
I heard the Iranians are making nice with the Italians. They have contributed a lot of money for a big new university in Rome. A pallet of the cash they got from Obama. It’s going to be called Ay-atollah U.
Trump hopes to provoke Iran into renouncing the nuclear deal. This would be dumb move by them. But in the meantime Trump is applying sanctions and aims to hurt Iran economically. In the meantime, Israel talks war. Hariri’s resignation has thrown Lebanon into a crisis and Trump can now reconstruct affairs there and put Hezbollah between Israel and an anti-Hezbollah Sunni/Maronite coalition. All this spells the end of Iran in Syria. Assad will have to yield to circumstances or be expelled. If he fights, he will be easily beat. Putin is not going to pitch in because he’ll get hurt
Monfoort doesn’t understand that if Putin doesn’t help Trump in Syria he loses big time. Putin understands.
Hezbollah puts their forces in Lebanon in a state of alert, thus threatening civil war in that country. The reason is because the next government in Lebanon might exclude them from the coalition,under pressure from the U.S. Very foolish, as it provides a justification for intervention. Bye, bye Hezbollah, bye bye Iran.
Hariri just arrived in Paris to meet with Macron. So France is in the coalition forged by Trump.
I am with painty on this one. Macron is going to get Hezbollah out of Lebanon by next Wednesday. And he is going to force them to stack their arms including tens of thousands of rockets and missiles on the way out. He has offered all of them asylum on the French Riviera and a lot of French wenches. Because the Big Orange Fella told him to. Stay tuned for more of painty’s looney toons.
It is a statement of French support for Trump’s goals and a message for Iran and the rest of the world. It does not imply a military commitment but puts the weight of France into the scales. I say coalition, meaning an informal group offering various degrees of support.
Frank: ” Contributions are defined as anything of valuable, not just money.” Clinton supporters define anything valuable to such an extreme degree that letters to the editor explaining a foreign country’s position at the behest of a foreign country (perhaps Israel in some circumstances)could be a criminal violation. Criminal statutes are supposed to be interpreted narrowly and not expansively.
In any event, if we are going to look for extreme interpretations of criminal statutes, at the very least, we should interpret the statutes as written. Clinton by putting US property (official emails) on her private server clearly violated a simple criminal statute dealing with gross negligence. She should be prosecuted. The same energy that Mueller is using to “investigate” (really persecute Trump), should be used against Clinton and her lawyers. In addition to the clear violation we already know about, undoubtedly other violations will surface. Then she and her staff should face the same intense prosecution and heavy-handed search that is being applied by Mueller currently to Trump associates.
I agree that Assange was politically motivated. So what. His dislike of Clinton is long standing. If he is in a spot where the US can assert jurisdiction over him he can be prosecuted. Whoever released Trump’s tax return illegally was also politically motivated.
******
I think Trump should have released his tax returns. He doesn’t have to and apparently it didn’t matter to a lot of voters.
*****
“The “only real solution” is to live a life that will allow the public to trust you. Those who rage against leaks the most generally have the most to hide.”
The idea that we will have politicians (at least for the next 5 or 10 years)who will live a life of public trust is, very unfortunately, quaint. Clinton has at least 30 years of a public life built on easily seen lies and corruption. Yet the left-wing press and most portions of the Democratic party protected her. She profited from her corruption and lies. Not very encouraging to other potential politicians.
Lying has been part of American politics for a long time. (Think of the lies about Franklin Roosevelt’s health in another era.)
Trump also has a very poor record with respect to honesty. The only minimal circumstance that makes him less corrupt and possibly dangerous than Clinton has been that he has been doing it for a shorter period of time in the public arena and is less skilled than Clinton.
JD
Perhaps the best logic for term limits is to get them out of office before they become too skilled at dishonesty.
The real danger to our democracy is the collusion between the U.S. 97% consensus Democrat stooge media and the Democrat party:
http://nypost.com/2017/11/07/how-brazilles-book-exposes-liberal-medias-hillary-health-coverup/
The Democrat stooge media collusion was worth billions to the sick old hag. NYT, WAPO, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN etc etc etc acted as PR flacks for that hag.
Also, we got the collusion and bribery between public employee unions and the Democrat politicians, who reward/bribe the union goons with fat paychecks, early retirement and pension benefits for their loyalty and campaign contributions. They are bankrupting the country.
Alan Dershowitz says the Russia Russia Russia hysteria is BS. He is correct.
It is true that too many once critical media are acting partisan these days: WaPo, NYT, Guardian. That is not due to lack of intelligence, more due to ideology. Money could also play a role as they lost a lot of paying subscribers and might be supported by globalist MNCs and or Gulf oil money (for censoring criticism on Islam).
jddohio wrote: “Criminal statutes are supposed to be interpreted narrowly and not expansively.”
Unfortunately, the statute was written very expansively. Here are some of the key clauses, if you care to elaborate. The most confusing issue for me is what crimes may have been committed, if anyone “colluded” with the Russians.
“The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:
Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;”
“The Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals.”
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/
Elsewhere, non-monetary contributions are “a contribution of goods, services or property offered free or at less than the usual and normal charge.” If you are a professional who provides professional services to a campaign, it is my understanding that you are making a contribution if you don’t charge your normal fee.
I agree with much of the rest of what you wrote, except that others sent the classified information to HRC’s server and DoS security was aware of the private email address. The whole organization was insecure. This would make convicting HRC and others for these “crimes” difficult. The only thing worse than not indicting her might be indicting and failing to convict. A special consul to investigate the Clinton Global Initiative or her perjury or obstruction of justice seems fair given the Russia investigation, but pursuing your former election opponent in this manner seems imprudent unless some Dems support it.
Frank: “Unfortunately, the statute was written very expansively. Here are some of the key clauses, if you care to elaborate. The most confusing issue for me is what crimes may have been committed, if anyone “colluded” with the Russians.”
Words are very malleable and susceptible to different interpretations. For instance, a pure linguistic argument (totally impractical) could be made that the 13 th Amendment’s prohibition against slavery prohibited compulsory education for children. Lawyers deal with very wide differences and tricks in the interpretation of language and what may seem to be an obvious interpretation for a lay person may not be obvious to courts or lawyers.
For instance if you take an expansive interpretation of “anything of value” any information, no matter how minor or trivial, provided by an illegal alien to any candidate could be a violation of the statute. In a practical sense, there should be a rule of reason as to what constitutes anything of value. This is explained by a law professor here. http://www.newsweek.com/why-donald-jrs-russia-meeting-was-bad-may-not-have-been-illegal-636992
Here is one statement of the rule that criminal statutes are to be narrowly construed contained in a case dealing with what constituted property in a mail fraud case. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/12/case.html The Supreme Court stated: “Moreover, to the extent that the word “property” is ambiguous as placed in § 1341, we have instructed that “ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity.” Rewis v. United States, 401 U. S. 808, 812 (1971). This interpretive guide is especially appropriate in construing § 1341 because, as this case demonstrates, mail fraud is a predicate offense under RICO, 18 U. S. C. § 1961(1) (1994 ed., Supp. IV), and the money laundering statute, § 1956(c)(7)(A). In deciding what is “property” under § 1341, we think “it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite.”
Of course, in practice, the interpretative rule I have cited is applied in different manners in different cases. However, it is a fundamental rule based on roughly the same sentiment that liberty is favored over government power and that proof beyond a doubt is required in criminal cases.
JD
jddohio: Tokaji’s arguments in your link seem pretty thin. If Democrats solicited an affidavit from an illegal immigrant who had worked on Trump tower, I wouldn’t deem that valuable because Trump didn’t hire the worker himself and could assert he didn’t know his status. Bill Clinton nominated and rejected two candidates for AG who had illegal immigrant nannies. If a similar situation applied to Trump, there would be some precedent showing that information could create a serious scandal. However, that would likely fall under the protection of free political speech.
Likewise, Tokaji’s description of Veselnitskay’s offer as “vague” may not be correct if Paul Manafort were to testify or if a tape recording of that meeting were obtained. (If Putin gives up hope of getting favorable treatment from Trump, he could decide to create more disruption.)
Finally, he suggests that “information” doesn’t have a clear monetary value. However, the hackers who stole emails were being paid by the Russians and the DNC and Podesta hacks were not short operations. The criminal aspect would make the operations more expensive if the hackers lived or wanted to travel outside Russia. It is perfectly legal for the press to receive such stolen email, but those making the “contribution” committed crimes when obtaining that contribution.
Most of what you wrote makes good sense to me.
Hillary was in charge of DOS security. That is the problem. People in DOS spoke up about Hillary’s BS server and they were told to shut up. She was responsible for the emails that hit her server. Classified material was stored on her server. Period. Her private server in her house. She is responsible for that. She owns it. That is such an obvious breach of security that anybody should be able to get it. Then she gave the stuff to some little companies and who knows where it went and how many people saw it. She kept it for years, after she left office and destroyed large parts of it. Those emails were not her personal property. Everybody who has ever had a security clearance knows that old hag belongs in the hoosegow.
Frank: “The whole organization was insecure. This would make convicting HRC and others for these “crimes” difficult.”
Totally irrelevant. The crime is in the improper handling of the emails (govt. property). Whether the proper places for the emails were insecure is immaterial. What a lot of people don’t understand is that the emails were not her property. She had zero authority to move them to her own server. In the larger picture, even if the proper government repositories were as insecure as her server, it was not an option for her to essentially turn them into her own personal property. If people could make the type of argument that you are suggesting, thousands of state department employees could keep their own emails.
***
Also, if the government servers were insecure, it was her job as head of the department to make them secure.
JD
Don Monfort wrote: “People in DOS spoke up about Hillary’s BS server and they were told to shut up.”
IIRC, according to Comey’s testimony to Congress, DoS security was aware of her @clintonmail.com address and told investigators they did nothing about it. They even used it themselves, though not for classified information. Even President Obama used her @clintonmail.com address – but he used a pseudonym for himself. Security WAS concerned about her Blackberry, which might become infected with software that could allow it to broadcast meetings she attended. When at the DoS building, she was asked to lock her Blackberry in a safe far from the offices and meeting rooms of high officials. (Comey didn’t mention what she did with her Blackberry when at the White House.) If you’d like links, I’ll provide them.
Even worse, DoS security allowed their ranks to infiltrated by the person who had been handling electronic security for the Clinton campaign. He was a POLITICAL appointee in their section.
Don and jddohio: I believe the person who sends classified email to an insecure email address is responsible for the breach of security. If I sent you a message with classified information, you wouldn’t be responsible for the breach of security. The secure email system used by the DoS – was the same system used by the CIA, FBI, NSA, and other intelligence organizations. It exists only on special PC’s (no wireless) whose copy, print, and other functions have been modified. It is not possible to forward an email in the secure system to a non-secure address. HRC had never used a PC for anything and used only her Blackberry. Her assistants handled the secure email for her – when she was in her office. Needless to say, if you needed to reach HRC ASAP, you didn’t use secure email, because she could be gone from her office for long periods of time. Comey had secure email at home, but the DoS did not. She asked for a secure Blackberry, like Obama’s, but the NSA refused. (Obama’s required a staff of four to monitor it 24/7/365.)
When I commented that the whole DoS was failing to handle classified subjects over email correctly, jddohio wrote: “Totally irrelevant.”
You may be legally correct, but it would be extremely difficult in practice to prosecute just HRC (and possibly her aides) for doing what other officials were doing and what DoS security wasn’t stopping. Her defense attorneys would make the prosecutors look politically motivated for picking on her, when everyone else was doing somewhat similar things. (Her sins were greater.) Some occasionally used commercial email addresses such as gmail. Their @dos.gov email addresses apparently were less secure than gmail and not suitable for classified material. Perhaps some testimony about the actions of others might be considered irrelevant, but almost all the classified material on her server was SENT TO HRC by others. Often they would discuss sensitive subjects using vague terms – say a drone attack in Pakistan in 2 hours that HRC might want to object to, but they didn’t have secure email 24/7 for such communications.
I am fully aware that HRC’s emails were government property and that DoS was responsible for properly responding to Congressional and FOI requests for her records. IMO, her server existed to improperly HIDE her email from the DoS attorneys and staff who were assigned to answer such requests. In particular, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin had accounts on HRC’s server (in addition to @dos.gov accounts) and correspondence between those accounts was not captured elsewhere. That might be obstruction of justice, but many government officials have used pseudonyms and personal accounts for the same reason.
Question. You point out:
It looks as though it was possible to copy from the secure email system onto thumbdrives, copy from the thumbdrive to an ordinary computer and then forward. Otherwise, some of the sequences don’t make sense.
Some malware, including X-Tunnel on DNC, was designed to bridge the “air gap” to computers not connected to the internet using thumb drives. If Huma Abedin’s computer was infected, even air-gapped classified information could have been exfiltrated.
Frank: “When I commented that the whole DoS was failing to handle classified subjects over email correctly, jddohio wrote: “Totally irrelevant.”
You may be legally correct, but it would be extremely difficult in practice to prosecute just HRC (and possibly her aides) for doing what other officials were doing and what DoS security wasn’t stopping. Her defense attorneys would make the prosecutors look politically motivated for picking on her, when everyone else was doing somewhat similar things. (Her sins were greater.”
What you fail to understand is that the evidence of “comparative security” for lack of a better term, will be excluded by the trial judge, and the jury will never hear of the points you are making. Fed. Rule of Evidence 402 states this concisely: “Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_402
JD
Don, I’ve actually held a security clearance over decades and had to go through the DoD training many times. The bottom line is that removing classified material from a secure area is a crime. Intent has nothing to do with it. Hillary would have been required to go through the training just like everyone else. As I recall, it was unclear whether she actually did so however. In my opinion this is an instance where our system of justice is a dual system. HRC clearly got different treatment than lower level people with access to classified material. It’s also clear that Comey decided months before concluding the investigation that Hillary would not be charged. Interviews with HRC and her top aids by the FBI were shams.
jddohio writes: “What you fail to understand is that the evidence of “comparative security” for lack of a better term, will be excluded by the trial judge, and the jury will never hear of the points you are making.”
HRC presumably would have been charged with “excessive negligence” in handling classified materials. Do you really think that a judge would exclude testimony: about the “normal” level of negligence at the DoS, about how the department may have failed to prevent HRC’s negligence, about the inadequacy of secure communications for the SoS compared with other high officials, or from Clinton partisans who negligently discussed classified information in an email sent to HRC’s @clintonmail.com address? What instructions is the judge going to provide the jury to define what constitutes the crime of “excessive negligence” in handling classified material when the statute has been used only once?
For myself, it would be easy to convict HRC of excessive negligence because the Clintons I “know” believe they are above the rules that apply to ordinary people. HRC’s ability to function effectively as the co-leader of the free world would be more important than the security of classified information. She was surrounded by loyalists prepared to crush anyone who interfered with her mission (including eventually winning the presidency). Of course, I wouldn’t be allowed on the jury and am citing “facts not in evidence”.
Respectfully, Frank
Steve asked: “It looks as though it was possible to copy from the secure email system onto thumbdrives, copy from the thumbdrive to an ordinary computer and then forward. Otherwise, some of the sequences don’t make sense.”
I suspect there are other readers of you blog who can tell you from personal experience about the US secure email system. I can not. Some aspects were discussed by Comey (who used it daily) in his testimony to Congress. He discussed one incident recorded in email when HRC heard about and wanted to read a foreign news article that had been forwarded to State. Unfortunately, it had been sent via the secure email system and there was no way to immediately forward what had been a public document to HRC. She was outraged. I believe Comey said there are no USB ports for thumb drives. Classification is the responsibility by the originator of the intelligence and only the department of the originator can then declassify that material. Could someone simply take a picture of the computer screen – or is there constant video monitoring of the secure PC’s?
People in the DoS in Washington didn’t generate any intelligence, so they didn’t routinely classify their email. They were supposed to use the secure email system for sensitive material, but couldn’t when they were out of the office, nor could they quickly reach HRC when in the office, but weren’t sure she was in. So a lot of sensitive material got discussed via ordinary email and was later classified only if it was requested by Congress, FOI, or for other publications.
Frank: ” Do you really think that a judge would exclude testimony: about the “normal” level of negligence at the DoS, about how the department may have failed to prevent HRC’s negligence, about the inadequacy of secure communications for the SoS compared with other high officials, or from Clinton partisans who negligently discussed classified information in an email sent to HRC’s @clintonmail.com address?”
Yes, that is precisely the point of the evidentiary rule. Here is the language of the statute: “(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed” 18 USC 793 (f).
The law simply (and correctly) penalizes the improper (grossly negligent) removal of government records from their proper locations.
I would note that, as far as I know, Clinton never claimed she moved the records for security reasons. From the circumstances, it is obvious that she moved them so that she could have control over embarrassing emails. However, again, this matter, although of interest to the public at large, has nothing to do with the statute. Comey virtually admitted that she violated the statute — he said that most prosecutors wouldn’t bring suit — I don’t know why because her behavior was exactly the type of conduct that Congress undoubtedly wanted to prevent.
JD
Here you go, jdd:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/358982-early-comey-memo-accused-clinton-of-gross-negligence-on-emails
Comey had written a memo describing Hillary as being “grossly negligent” in handling classified material. Then he must have gotten word from his superiors instructing him on how to handle the “matter” and he changed his tune to “extremely careless”. Explain to Frank why that change was made.
Correct, dpy. Everybody goes through the training and re-training. Hillary went through the training in the Senate and when she became SoS. My guess is she either dodged signing the documents attesting to receiving training, or she and her accomplices got rid of them when the doo doo hit the fan.
Don wrote: “Hillary was in charge of DOS security. That is the problem. People in DOS spoke up about Hillary’s BS server and they were told to shut up. She was responsible for the emails that hit her server. Classified material was stored on her server. Period. Her private server in her house. She is responsible for that. She owns it. That is such an obvious breach of security that anybody should be able to get it. Then she gave the stuff to some little companies and who knows where it went and how many people saw it. She kept it for years, after she left office and destroyed large parts of it. Those emails were not her personal property. Everybody who has ever had a security clearance knows that old hag belongs in the hoosegow.
1) It is my understanding (based on Comey’s testimony in front of Congress) that no one in the DoS objected to her using the server. No one bothered to ask where it was located or how it was secured. Classified material belonged in the secure email system. Nevertheless, Comey stated that a responsible SoS should have known that a private server was inappropriate and insecure.
2) Technically, those who SENT sensitive material to her @clintonmail.com address were responsible for breaching security. Even if they had sent the same email to HRC at a @dos.gov address (HRC didn’t have one), they would have breached security. Except at the beginning, both systems were equally vulnerable. Sensitive subjects were supposed to be discussed on the classified email system, which was only available at her office. A busy, work-oholic SoS doesn’t spend much time in her office. If you needed an answer ASAP, you didn’t use the secure system.
3) If email from @dos.gov accounts was subpoenaed or might be disclosed, it would be reviewed for sensitive content and THEN marked classified if its release needed to be blocked. Almost all of the “classified email on HRC’s server” was sent by others and marked classified MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER HRC left the department (when Congress began investigating and issued many subpoenas). By that time, the server had been wiped and bleached.
4) When HRC testified to Congress that she didn’t receive any classified email via her server; she was wrong, but probably wasn’t lying. With a handful of exceptions, nothing came to her server with classified markings on it. When questioned by the FBI, HRC was unable to properly interpret the markings that indicated some paragraphs in a few emails were classified. For HRC, classified email came via the classified email system that she never personally used. Assistants printed, typed, secured, and shredded that email for her.
5) Needless to say, HRC didn’t personally deal with the company that maintained her server and wiped it clean. Nor did she personally handle the return of her work-related email (and destruction of her “private email”) on her server when DoS requested it long after she left. Nor did she personally respond to the subpoenas. Cheryl Mills and other private attorneys dealt with those issues for her. The mistakes that were made during this process were not HRC’s personal responsibility. Everything was protected by the mafia-loyalty of her close associates and attorney-client privilege. (You might remember that the McDougals went to prison rather than testify about the Clintons during Whitewater.)
6) HRC never had a security clearance before starting work at the DoS. (AFAIK, Congress doesn’t routinely get security clearances.) The DoS was her first exposure to classified documents. I doubt she attended the orientation program for new DoS employees handling classified material or even received a personal tutorial. Security was a problem for her assistants to handle. She and Obama had a planet to run and her assistants shielded her from such petty annoyances. (The man who ran security for her campaign was even given a political appointment in DoS security!)
7) The old hag probably belongs in the hoosegow because she: obstructed justice (by putting her email out of reach on her server), committed perjury testifying to Congress, and shared $100+ million obtained through association with the corrupt CGI. If she had been indicted for mishandling classified material, do you think she would have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on this evidence?
FWIW I agree with your last paragraph. The evidence of obstruction of justice is very plain. In other non-Clinton investigations, Comey was very alert to use of obstruction of justice e.g. Martha Stewart where she was never found guilty of any securities charges and whose obstruction was rather slight (would never have been charged in common law Canada, UK or Australia). Mueller did the same with Papadopolous (whose obstruction appears to me to have been very very slight and would never be charged in Canada, UK or Australia). However, Comey kept his eyes wide shut in respect to very deliberate obstruction by Mills, Clinton etc where lesser folk pled the 5th and weren’t charged. Comey innocently told Congress that he needed a reference from them to investigate obstruction, which he had not received. But he had not required such direction in respect to Martha Stewart or Frank Quattrone (another obstruction charge).
Steve, do you plan to do a post on what is your current net assessments on:
1) The bonafides of the Apt28 DNC hack as presented by Crowdstrike?
2) If the APt28 DNC hack was authentic then its correct attribution?
3) Diddo above on Guciffer 2.0?
I’m still interested. Why? After reading the January 2017 DNI report the second time it strikes me that they spend about 80% talking about Russia Today. The prosecutor’s logic is if RT is reporting that the US MSM is biased for Hillary then Putin must be hacking for Trump. The DNI report is so redundant of valueless observations as to be almost unreadable. Clearly, its purpose is was to provide a talking point of a report detailing Russian meddling, nothing more. I’m guessing that a large portion of US conservatives are skeptical of the report.
If the DNI report turns out to be wrong on WL sourcing being Putin I would hope that all conservatives would agree that the US IC serves its own interests regardless and is not a compass for truth. In that case it’s organization is more detrimental to world peace and trust than productive. One needs less security with a trustworthy community. Suspicion of foreign political intrigue is currently humanity’s greatest plague.
I’m working on a long article on whether the Steele dossier was the “intelligence bombshell” described in WaPo June 23, 2017 article with a view to analysing its use in intel assessments from contemporary leaks. Long and my productivity is like molasses.
Frank Frank Frank
After reading and replying to your previous comment, I am not even to go through this last one. My reply to the other should suffice. I don’t see why we have to keep going over things that should have been clear to all about a hundred comments ago.
OK, just for fun:
Read it, Frank:
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-inspector-general-report-223553
The old hag Senator served 6 years on the Armed Service Committee. Every time those clowns get a classified briefing they are instructed on how the information is to be handled. Been there done that. She bragged about being in on classified info durting her eight years in the WH. You think she didn’t know the score. Get serious.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/the-rooms-where-congress-keeps-its-secrets/451554/
The old hag SoS was responsible for recognizing and proper handling of material that had no yet been marked classified. It doesn’t have to have the stamp on it, Frank.
snip – Don, this sort of commentary isn’t necessary and distracts.
+I really object to you guys referring to HRC as an old hag.Terribly insulting to us seniors. Not all hags are old
Conclusion: “The Trump Collusion Case Is Not Getting the Clinton Emails Treatment” http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453659/mueller-paul-manafort-investigation-hardball-tactics
Steve wrote: “The evidence of obstruction of justice is very plain. In other non-Clinton investigations, Comey was very alert to use of obstruction of justice e.g.”
Comey’s unwillingness to expand the scope of the potential charges is disturbing. The difficult aspect of obstruction is that the server was set up and decommissioned before Congress realized that their requests for information weren’t resulting in production of most of HRC’s email. HRC and her aides had set up a system to obstruct justice even BEFORE questions were asked and subpoenas were issued. That isn’t typical obstruction. However, the FBI proved that the sorting of work and private emails had lead to the destruction of work records – subpoenaed government property.
Cheryl Mills did far more to obstruct justice than Martha Stewart who was charged. And especially in comparison to Papadopolous, whose misdeeds are a trifle compared to Mills.
Yes, Don, the whole FBI investigation of the email server was mishandled. It is now clear that Comey decided to give Clinton a pass at least a couple of months before Clinton was actually interviewed. That can only have been a political decision.
Here’s another for you, Frank. Enjoy:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440339/hillary-clintons-senate-armed-services-committee-years-hamstring-her-claims
Don, Don, Don.
All that security that HRC encountered as a Senator on the Armed Services Committee was in place in HRC’s office at the DoS, including a system for handling email with complete security as well as receiving classified documents. That is where the vast majority of HRC’s classified information resided, in her office. With a few exceptions, the email on her server was marked classified long after she left. Yes, a SoS should have known that some of the material she RECEIVED, forwarded and occasionally composed by email was too sensitive for unsecure email, but the secure system was available to her for only a small fraction of her 80+ hour work weeks. Her correspondents were equally insecure and using a @dos.gov email address wouldn’t have eliminated the security lapses.
By the way, HRC never used email in the Senate or the WH, so she didn’t learn about email security then.
I presume that you recognize that Congress usually sends a staffer to read classified information and report back. The CIA set up a special room for Senators and Representatives ONLY (no staff) to read the classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate on WMD in Iraq (which was far more candid and accurate than the version released to the public). Only a half-dozen or so bothered to read the NIE in person before voting on whether to approve a war.
As for the DoS inspector’s CYA report, did you find a written memo to HRC (or even her chief of staff) stating that her email server was insecure? That her email records were government property that needed to be continuously accessible to DoS attorneys responding to subpoenas and FOI? (In a courtroom, you’d prefer to have someone able to testify that HRC had actually read that memo and discussed it with them. No DoS reads every memo they receive). Yes, the staff knew and complained about her server, but not to HRC herself or Mills. In your Politico article, Bentel (in charge of technology for the SoS) refused to testify in front of Congress, but was given immunity by the FBI and talked. Comey told Congress that the FBI had no witness or evidence that anyone told HRC her actions were improper, much less illegal. (Cheryl Mills would have damaged the career of anyone who did so.) I’d be thrilled if you could prove that Comey lied to Congress about this subject, because that would mean that the government could have proven she intentionally mishandled classified material. (Until then, I’d prefer to believe that the Director of the FBI – who could have let the compromised AG publicly defend the decision – wasn’t lying to Congress about what the FBI found.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/three-more-hillary-clinton-witnesses-were-given-immunity-by-fbi
Now, several witnesses who were given immunity could have been lying. If the FBI had more time before the election, they might have prosecuted these witnesses first and then offered generous sentencing recommendations for their testimony. That would have consumed many months. With immunity, the only incentive to tell the truth is that you will be charged with perjury if the witness is caught lying – and the FBI may have or obtain information the witness doesn’t know about. It would have been nice to see the person who wiped the server and lied about it and perhaps others who declined to testify without immunity sent to jail.
Don: In one sense, the case against HRC did go to trial. When Comey testified in front of Congress, you could hear his evidence and his decision not to prosecute challenged by Republicans as passionate about the issue as you are. You can hear or read the transcripts of that “trial” on the Internet. Stop relying on secondary sources with an axe to grind. Then show me where Comey lied about the case against HRC. (The case he publicly re-opened just before the election.)
I wish I had not wasted my time reading that drivel, Frank. I have had first hand experience in handling, briefing and being briefed on classified information. In Congress, in the Pentagon and elsewhere. Is that extensive professional eyeballs on the subject knowledge from second-hand axe to grind sources? You are the joker relying on second hand sources. You know squat. End of discussion.
Ah! Long on snark and short on brains gets you a job in intelligence, provided that you thump your chest hard enough. Interesting.
Actually, like many others I was drafted into intel from military service. They recruit the baddest and the brightest. The services hate that. I assume you also think all the elite military operators are short on brains. Why would they routinely put their lives on the line in quasi-suicidal situations for the likes of you, unless they are really dumb. I bet you have a bowling trophy, or something that you can brag about. Maybe a cross-country letter.
Don wrote: “I wish I had not wasted my time reading that drivel, Frank. I have had first hand experience in handling, briefing and being briefed on classified information. In Congress, in the Pentagon and elsewhere. Is that extensive professional eyeballs on the subject knowledge from second-hand axe to grind sources? You are the joker relying on second hand sources.”
Your professional experience with classified information is not in question. Fortunately, there is NO DOUBT HRC and her colleagues mishandled classified information (although it was officially marked classified later). See official statement linked below. What you appear to be missing is that unambiguous evidence of wrongdoing does not mean that the appropriate penalty for all is jail. Some are reprimanded, lose security clearances, or their job. Nor does such evidence mean that our justice system can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom. OTOH, if we don’t enforce our laws, people lose respect for them. In other words, the CONTROVERSIAL aspects of this scandal involve issues you may not have personally experienced.
In many cases, conviction requires proof of intent. HRC had a classified email system in her office and properly handled the classified email and documents that arrived there. Can the government prove that HRC set up the server intending to receive, send, and store classified information on it???*
Comey said HRC should have recognized that classified subjects would occasionally be discussed by email outside the secure system. However, those discussions would be illegal whether done via her @clintonmail.com account OR if she had used a conventional non-secure @dos.gov account. Sensitive topics must be discussed via the inconvenient classified email system (not @dos.gov). Every correspondent involved mishandled classified information. All of the classified information that was insecurely sent to HRC (and stored on her server) originated and was also stored in insecure @dos.gov accounts.
I presume you can see the problem with debating how much “less secure” HRC’s server was (especially at first) than ordinary DoS accounts: Wrong is wrong. Furthermore, proving what HRC did or didn’t know about server security in 2009 would be challenging, especially when DoS security grossly neglected their responsibility.
If you want to second-guess the FBI’s decision not to recommend prosecution – THE REAL CONTROVERSY – I respectfully suggest you need something besides personal experience with handling classified information. You need to read and understand the FBI’s evidence and how that law has been applied in the past. Otherwise you could be the one spouting drivel. Please note that the FBI didn’t need to share any of their findings with the public and normally wouldn’t do so. However, Comey thought the public’s right to know was more important than HRC’s privacy. Candor about is a presidential candidate’s serious mistakes is one he11 of a penalty; it may have cost her the election. Here is the official statement.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Congress wrote Comey a letter questioning why 9(?) individuals who mishandled classified information were prosecuted, while HRC was not. Most of these cases are in Wikipedia. In all but one case, evidence of intent was immediately apparent. (Sandy Berger, for example, was observed hiding documents in his pants and sock and lied to investigators about it.)
Click to access 070516_Letter-to-Director-Comey.pdf
*HRC’s server placed government records/property outside the reach of the government attorneys responsible for responding to Congressional and public requests. IMO, the server was set up with the intent of avoiding such scrutiny and that caused obstruction of justice. Her dissembling on this subject demonstrates that she knew
Frank: “In many cases, conviction requires proof of intent. HRC had a classified email system in her office and properly handled the classified email and documents that arrived there. Can the government prove that HRC set up the server intending to receive, send, and store classified information on it???”
You keep on erroneously stating that the government has to prove intent. Gross negligence does not require intent. See 18 USC 793 (f) for gross negligence reference. Also, proving intent itself is not that difficult. What other reason other than, keeping within her own personal control that (emails) which belonged to the government could she possibly have. She didn’t set up the server to keep in touch with her law school classmates or to keep track of birthday parties.
JD
JD: ” You keep erroneously stating that the government has to prove intent”
### ####
As in the last several months, several times a month, corrected on each occasion by a better informed commenter.
jddohiio wrote: “You keep on erroneously stating that the government has to prove intent.”
When testifying to Congress, Mr. Comey asserted that there were two important considerations in deciding whether to bring an indictment (after establishing wrongdoing: 1) evidence of intent to break the law (did the person know what he was doing was wrong when he did it) AND 2) how have others who committed similar acts been treated in the past (fairness). Above I wrote:
“In MANY cases, conviction requires proof of intent.”
“You need to read and understand the FBI’s evidence and how [the] law has been applied in the past.”
Mr. Comey stated that he surveyed all of the cases where individuals had been indicted for mishandling classified information and found statutes requiring proof of intent in all but one of them. (I presume 18 USC 793 (f) was used in that case.) In that one exception, our enemies had obtained important secrets. Comey stated that he didn’t want (fairness) to recommend the second prosecution in a century without evidence of intent. Given the anecdotal claims I have read that Comey’s statement is wrong, I checked to see if intent was apparent in the nine recent convictions mentioned in a letter from Republicans in Congress.
I understand there are two laws that permit prosecution for mishandling without intent, one for felony and one for misdemeanor (as well as others that do require intent). I don’t know which statute # has allegedly been used “only once in the last century”.
When the DoJ IG report on Comey is issued, we should have the proper means of evaluating his congressional testimony.
Let’s explore whether HRC could have been prosecuted despite Comey’s arguments. More than 100 emails with classified information were sent outside the secure email system. If no one is indicted, Comey could report to the DoJ that this outrageous behavior is likely to continue. That is an unacceptable outcome.
There were eight email chains where top secret information – our nation’s most precious secrets – was mishandled. Let’s consider going after the members of the group of individuals who introduced top secret information into these email chains. That would be fair, but that might not include HRC or Mills. If we want them, we might need to consider the contributors in the 36 additional chains discussing secret information. If HRC and Mills never contributed even secret information, we have a problem.
Those willing to admit that they knew they did something wrong, would get fired, lose their security clearance or receive a reprimand depending on the extent of their misbehavior. Those who won’t admit wrongdoing, get indicted for misdemeanor mishandling using statutes which don’t require proof of intent – and reluctant prosecutors can tell themselves they have co-participants who could provide evidence of intent (though not beyond a reasonable doubt.) Perhaps this campaign will provide conclusive evidence of intent, perhaps not. Then they indict HRC, Mills, and the security chief in the SoS’s office for felony gross mishandling (with or without intent) because of: the greater insecurity of HRC’s server, the removal and destruction of government records, conspiracy to obstruct oversight, their greater responsibility as leaders, and (in HRC’s case) misleading Congress. They can’t get evidence of all of this wrongdoing in front of a jury without bringing all these charges, but I’m skeptical a jury will convict HRC without being provided evidence of the scope of the wrongdoing.
Could Comey get this plan past AG Lynch? No, but that shouldn’t make a difference. Could it be implemented before the election, preferably before her nomination? (These considerations may have influenced Comey recommendations late in the investigation.)
What happens when a cooperating witness is cross-examined and asked why they did what they did? Won’t they say that “I couldn’t do my job and provide HRC with the information she needed to know to make decisions in a timely manner without mishandling classified information? Secretary Clinton is rarely in her office to be reached on the classified email system, she doesn’t have classified email at home, AND the NSA refused her a secure Blackberry like Obama’s. I would have driven to my office to use the secure email system, but that wouldn’t have solved my problem (even if HRC would tolerate the delay).
This evidence of intent was new to me:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-2016/index.html
Frank — Quoting Comey on FBI investigation and legal standard.
Frank, Comey is not a credible source for analyzing the criminality question pertaining to Clinton. The clearest evidence of this was his 3 hour “questioning” of Clinton about 2 days before he went public with his decision not to prosecute.
For anyone knowledgeable this is an absolute joke. The questioning was not taped or transcribed. (Supposedly, the FBI felt its own agents taking notes was adequate.) Just think about this for a minute. The FBI agents could have been potentially forced to testify against a Presidential candidate or a President. If Comey was seriously investigating Clinton or questioning her, her testimony would have been taped or transcribed. (Will mention that I am aware of a widespread practice of FBI not taping interrogations [simply awful policy not followed by most police departments], but even if it was the technical policy in her circumstances, the extraordinary circumstances demanded taping.) Additionally, a real investigation would have questioned Clinton close to the beginning of the process before she would have had a chance to clean up and massage her story. I understand that Comey also treated Clinton’s lawyers very gingerly although I have not looked at it closely.
The fact that the gross negligence statute hadn’t been used in a long time, is mostly irrelevant in this situation. I doubt that anyone who wasn’t a spy ever put the State Department more at risk than Clinton, and her actions were precisely the type of actions that the statute was designed to prohibit.
Additionally, Michael Mukasey, a former federal judge and attorney general felt that Clinton was subject to prosecution. If you want to get really technical a former judge and attorney general, should have more legal knowledge than an FBI director.
JD
jdd:”The fact that the gross negligence statute hadn’t been used in a long time, is mostly irrelevant in this situation.”
Right. If Comey wanted that cover story to have any weight, he would have had to name some folks who did something similar to what the silly grossly negligent SoS had done and they had not been prosecuted. Everyone I know, who knows someone who was prosecuted/persecuted for unintentionally violating some security related statute or another, is hoping that Comey gets prosecuted for some of his malfeasance. It is obvious the fix was in for the old hag.
It was not in Comey’s job description to let the old hag off the hook. He did it his way to let the DOJ off the hook. Lynch obviously influenced his thinking. He admits she told him to call the investigation a matter and that big Baby Huey meekly complied. Trump allegedly hopes he do something and Comey leaks and engineers a special counsel. All purely political and personal pique.
jjdohio: Thanks for your last (straight forward) reply. I think we agree on the key issue: Did this situation justify embarking on the second prosecution for mishandling without intent? What are you chances of obtaining a conviction? Somewhere in moderation is a proposal for how Comey might have recommended prosecution, but it has problems.
It appears to me that the FBI gave up hope of prosecution late in the case. The interviews with HRC, Mills and other insiders seemed pro-forma, reflecting the likelihood those people would be in the White House in six months. Inappropriate.
Don writes: “Everyone I know, who knows someone who was prosecuted/persecuted for unintentionally violating some security related statute or another, is hoping that Comey gets prosecuted for some of his malfeasance.”
Your anecdotes about prosecutions for unintentional violations prompted me to check out the recent convictions that Congressmen sent to Comey. IMO, eight had clear evidence of intent, and I couldn’t tell about the ninth. Any possibility of converting you anecdotes into real cases.
Don wrote: “Lynch obviously influenced his thinking.”
At his press conference, Comey said: “I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.”
He also said: “I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.” I seriously doubt Lynch encouraged him to be more transparent than usual about what an unindicted HRC had done.
It appears to me that he didn’t want the compromised AG – who should have recused herself – making a difficult situation worse.
Frank,
You must not have followed the vast document dumps that have occurred over the last year and a half.
In one email HRC explicitly asked a subordinate to remove classified markings from a document and FAX it to her. That’s a clear felonious act.
Just because others at State were lax with security doesn’t mean Leadership shouldn’t have set and demanded a higher standard. Hillary’s lack of appreciation of legal requirements and national security requirements shows ignorance and most people familiar with classified statues would say criminal actions.
You are no doubt aware that people are routinely prosecuted for divulging even without intent to harm the US. We should not have one law for lowly Corporals and another for arrogant, wealthy, and powerful leaders.
dpy6629 wrote: In one email HRC explicitly asked a subordinate to remove classified markings from a document and FAX it to her. That’s a clear felonious act.
Excellent point, but one Comey discussed in front of Congress. HRC was trying to read a newspaper article (a public record) that had been forwarded via the classified system to an official in State who alerted her to its existence. HRC wanted to read the newspaper article immediately. Technically, that required de-classifying the document before it could be FAXed or a trip to HRC’s DoS office to see the document in person. I’m not sure how the issue was resolved. I suspect someone printed FAXed only the newspaper article itself. Unless the rest of the email contained classified information and that information was FAXed to HRC insecurely, no one would send her to jail.
dpy6629 wrote: “Just because others at State were lax with security doesn’t mean Leadership shouldn’t have set and demanded a higher standard. Hillary’s lack of appreciation of legal requirements and national security requirements shows ignorance and most people familiar with classified statues would say criminal actions.”
I’m sure HRC believed that she could decide what rules did and didn’t apply to her, and that she would squash anyone who stood in her way. If someone had gotten in her way, she would be in jail by now.
dpy6629 wrote: “You are no doubt aware that people are routinely prosecuted for divulging even without intent to harm the US.”
I am aware that Comey testified under oath that he had reviewed all of the prosecutions and said that intent to violate the rules was an element in every case except one case of brought under the gross negligence statute. In that case, important secrets reached our enemies. When intent to break the rules could not be proven, violators would be reprimanded, lose their security clearance, or fired; but not sent to jail. After reviewing the history of prosecution for this crime, he didn’t believe it would be fair or legally appropriate to bring the second case in a century without evidence of intent and he challenged Congress to cite prosections without intent. I’d be interested in hearing about any. So would Republican Congressmen.
The lawfare legal blog has an analysis of the issues involved with this scandal. It adds some professional credibility so some of my facts – but their opinions are compromised by liberal bias.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/james-comey-hillary-clinton-and-email-investigation-guide-perplexed
The best argument (Lawfare doesn’t make) for prosecuting may have been the scandalous mishandling of classified materials by the top management of the DoS – something that could continue to threaten national security if no one suffered consequences. If Comey had pursued all of the serious wrongdoers as a group, the prosecutions (or other penalties) would appear less politically motivated. The server was the most outrageous aspect of this misbehavior and those responsible for it deserved the most serious penalties. It also resulted in loss of government records and obstruction of oversight.
Hi Steve,
I have a comment in moderation that was posted at 8:53 pm on Wednesday. Hope you can take it out.
JD
sorry about that – was offline
NATO green lights plan to establish a new cyber command center : https://www.stripes.com/news/europe/nato-green-lights-plan-to-establish-a-new-cyber-command-center-1.496887
More cyber offense or finally better defense?
Libya’s [secret] chemical weapons (including Sarin) were only destroyed in Feb 2014, 3 years i><after the civil war there started https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/world/africa/libyas-cache-of-toxic-arms-all-destroyed.html?_r=0
It’s reported yesterday that Natalia Veselnitskaya met with Fusion GPS just before and just after her June 9, 2016, meeting with Donald Jr. Fusion GPS had been hired on Clinton’s behalf in April 2016. I haven’t seen this obvious question asked by anyone yet as to whether Clinton might have had foreknowledge of Natalia’s meeting and the contents of her offer: Clinton emails. Could Clinton be so deep-state that even the CIA fears her?
Here is the report by Fox on Natalia meeting with Fusion GPS:
Ron: Veselnitskaya’s main job in the US may have been trying to get rid of or reduce the impact of the Magnitsky Act. Magnitsky was the Russian attorney who was tortured to death for attempting to expose corruption (theft of tax payments) from Bill Browder’s hedge fund. Browder got Congress to pass a law preventing corrupt Russian officials from banking in the West (where their money would be safe if Putin fell from power). Browder testified that he receives many calls from the press and legislators about Veselnitskaya’s lobbying activities. IIRC, she employed Fusion GPS in her lobbying efforts.
Browder testified to Congress that he was sure Veselnitskaya met with the Trump campaign about the Magnitsky Act. The President controls which Russians are banned from banking here. After the Magnitsky Act was passed, Putin banned US adoptions of Russian orphans. Donald Trump Jr said adoptions were discussed at the meeting.
Frank, yes I saw the Browder testimony video you posted. My thought is that HRC is a longtime VIP customer of Fusion GPS and she just hired they again to work creating a Russian dossier on Trump. Then Natalia is calling on the Trump campaign dangling Clinton emails to get in the door to pitch the Russia concern about the Magnitsky Act. We know that also at this time HRC would have been aware of the Russian attributed cyber attacks Both Fusion GPS and HRC would be aware of Manafort’s Russia connection. Call me suspicious that HRC could have had knowledge of Natalia’s visit to Trump Jr., and Manafort. If HRC was aware did she keep this to herself and remain passive?
Ron: I can’t explain why both Veselnitskaya and the DNC both ended up working with Fusion GPS. IIRC the contract with Fusion ended up being signed in April (well before HRC was nominated or cleared of the email scandal) by a law firm working for the DNC, so I’m not positive it is appropriate to attribute the choice to HRC herself. Opposition research might be something she would prefer to happen at arm’s length. On the other hand, Fusion probably got the contract because they knew someone important and the Clintons specialize in that too.
do we know that she had such knowledge prior to media reports?
If you’re interested in Ukraine and Putin, consider Marvin Kalb, Imperial Gamble: Putin, Ukraine, and the New Cold War. Book talk here:
60 Years experience with Russia. Views not easily categorized.
“60 years experience with Russia”
### ###
Nope. 26 years, strictly speaking. Today’s Russia was not yesterday’s USSR. But I don’t need Marvin Kalb to explain things to me. I also have 26 years experience.
mpainter: “I also have 26 years of experience” [with Russia].
Then you’ve read every one of Putin’s speeches and written documents (in Russian when necessary) like Kalb.
Kalb’s talk will tell you that to understand Putin you need to understand the Soviet system under which he was educated and the formative experiences of his life, especially the popular rebellion of the German people in 1989 (where Putin was stationed).
Also that Putin is a Russian nationalist. The roots of Russian nationalism go back to its birthplace in Kiev almost a millennium ago.
You have 26 years of experience doing what? Reading the massive propaganda effort in the West Putin has launched through RT, social media and the blogosphere? Your rants about the Ukraine have been full of mistaken assertions that could have been easily corrected if you did a little research before you wrote.
Did Putin invade Crimea as a show of strength or weakness? Does he fear the spirit of Berlin in 1989 and the EuroMaidan may be coming to Moscow? Could that be why he recently created a 350,000 member National Guard commanded by his former bodyguard and judo partner? Or is he afraid of the million Sunni Muslims who live in Moscow and the other 20M living mostly in the Caucasus? Or 76M more in the former USSR who are becoming increasing radicalized? Perhaps they aren’t happy with Putin’s alliance with Iran and Shia Islam in Syria where at least 10,000 Sunnis from the Soviet Union are fighting Assad?
mpainter: “But I don’t need Marvin Kalb to explain things to me.”
Exactly. You don’t want any uncomfortable facts to interfere with your preconceptions.
“Putin is a Russian nationalist” Says Frank, because Marvin Kalb told him so. No, I don’t need Marvin Kalb to explain Putin to me. Nor to recite history to me. I know which czar labored in the Netherlands as a boatbuilder. I know who the szekely are. I know the Cumans and their physical peculiarities. Who were the Varangian guard. What Basil II did to the army of Bulgars he beat. How Slavic languages are closer to Iranian than Germanic languages. How the Ukraine was depopulated and why, and how it was repopulated. That Lenin was of German, Jewish, and Chavash extraction.That Anastasia was the last member of her family to be shot. That Chavash are Turkish. That Alyia Mustafina is half tartar. The the Huns originated in the area between the Volga and the Urals. That the Urals are fabulously rich in mineral resources. That Stalin robbed banks to fund the party. That the Crimean tartars enslaved millions of Russians.
No, I don’t need Kalb. You do, but he can’t help you much.
You see, I was there way before Kalb. You are impressed because you didn’t know. I knew over thirty years ago. My education exceeds yours. Stick to your opinion leaders. I never pay any attention to such.
Although, I can’t say that I blame Kalb for trying to cash in on the RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA hysteria.
So what part of this history (both factual and myth) is driving conflict in Eastern Europe today. Kalb asserts that Putin believes that Russian history began a millennium ago with Kievan Rus, which was overrun by Mongols and Turks. The Russian homeland and Crimea were liberated from these invaders only a few centuries ago. Is this what Putin believes? Is he correct
I should say the beautiful and accomplished Alyia Mustafina, much adored in and out of Russia (except in the western Ukraine where every Russian is hated), born of a Russian mother and a father of Volga tartar ethnicity.
“…(both factual and myth)…”
### ### ###
The origin of the Szekley is more than just folklore; it was recorded historically during the time of Justinian by Procopius in “De Bello Gothico” about a century afterward. This settles authoritatively the issue of their origins.
“Putin is a Russian nationalist”
### ### ### ###
As in Make Russia Great Again? Tsk, tsk, that miscreant Putin.
mpainter: Thanks for the tour of early settlers and history of the Ukraine and its surroundings. I did recognize the name of the Russian czar who learned shipbuilding in the Netherlands – Khrushchev gave Kalb that nickname when he worked at the Moscow embassy.
Have you been putting your extensive knowledge of history to work helping the Russian Academy of Sciences produce a revised 1000-page history of New Russia (Novorossossiya)? It is being complied to support Putin’s absurd claim that “Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Nikolayev and Odessa” were part of what was called “New Russia back in tsarist days” and should not part of Ukraine today.
http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/08/30/russian-historians-preparing-textbooks-on-novorossiya/
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20796
Donetsk was founded by Russians, but the other Eastern Ukraine cities (Kharkov, Lugansk, and Kherson) were Cossack communities. The Southern Ukraine cities of Nikolayev and Odessa were established on territory captured from the Ottomans under Catherine the Great (with Cossack help) and also called New Russia, but those areas have always been dominated by Ukrainian speakers.
Unfortunately, the name Ukraine means borderlands and borders changed frequently in this area. History of western and eastern modern Ukraine have followed different paths, with the former controlled at times by Poland and Lithuania, while the eastern part by Russians and Turks. However, the Ukrainian language has been spoken in the area of modern Ukraine since it diverged from Russian and Bylorussian 1500 years ago – about the time Latin broke up into French, Spanish and Itallan and Anglos and Saxons displaced Latin from England. Those Ukrainian speakers have never permanently held or recently liberated territory that is unambiguously recognized as being Ukraine. Ukraine was briefly created after the disintegration of the Russian empire and again after the disintegration of the USSR.
Any new areas Putin wants to “liberate” from Ukraine will probably be called the country of “New Russia” to avoid having to annex them. Putin believes that the land occupied by all those who speak Eastern Slavic languages is “Russia” and the their rightful masters, the Great Russians, speak the language properly. However, Putin’s mistreatment of the Ukraine has made it impossible for Russia to ever dominate central and western Ukraine like the tsars and commissars who came before him.
The Guardian and Steele: one of their journo’s Luke Harding writes a book about the “Collusion” plus interview with Steele https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/15/how-trump-walked-into-putins-web-luke
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/christopher-steele-trump-russia-dossier-accurate
I remember Luke Harding’s reporting on Pakistan and India well: always 100% on the CIA line; a good boy.
I read HArding’s article carefully to see if they disclosed new evidence. Didn’t see anything new other than long rumored involvement of GCHQ in informing the CIA. There’s long been speculation that Steele gave dossier memoranda to GCHQ, which brought them to CIA at senior level.
Reading Luke Harding’s long article, it’s clear that he “70%” believe the dossier because Steele “70” believes it. This seems to be the case for everyone else, from Mother Jones to McCain to Brennan. And when Comey did not believe it enough to make a national press release about the dossier Steele was so hopping mad he just needed to approach everyone himself. I think it’s imperative the US IC makes it crystal clear they have another source about Russia collusion other than being contacted by five sources independently reporting what they were told by a distinguished British gentleman so earnest that he could be the real James Bond.
Consider this: according the dossier Trump had been intimately involved with Putin for the last five years by 2016, yet Putin needs to contact Trump by having his agent, Natalia come into the US and meet with Fusion GPS, (after getting help with her entry into the country by Loretta Lynch,) get a meeting with Trump Jr., Cushner and Manafort regarding HRC emails. The agent never brings up the subject of emails once in the meeting but instead talks about the Magnistky Act (snore). Then she exits with another meeting with Fusion GPS, whose most powerful client is a law firm hired by the DNC, controlled by that time for many months by HRC (according to Donna Brazile). The only thing more suspicious would have been if Natalia also met with Steele. Actually, for all we know she could be source D or E in the dossier.
There are no in betweens; either the dossier is essentially true and Trump should be impeached and imprisoned, or Steele and Fusions GPS fabricated it and should be prosecuted, or the FSB completely had the US IC for dinner, in which case the 2016 election hacking was just a component of one of the most brilliant ops in history.
Ron:”I think it’s imperative the US IC makes it crystal clear they have another source about Russia collusion other than being contacted by five sources independently reporting what they were told by a distinguished British gentleman so earnest that he could be the real James Bond.”
Are you talking about Trump-Russia collusion? What has the U.S. IC said about evidence or sources regarding allegations of Trump collusion with Russia? Has any intel agency alleged that Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russians? Has any intel agency claimed they have any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion? All I have seen coming out of the various investigations is that no evidence of collusion has turned up. Are you conflating collusion and interference? What do you want them to show you?
No agency I know of has accused Trump of colluding with the Russians. The FBI was conducting some sort of investigation, but we don’t know many details. Some squirrelly stuff with Comey, but we will need to know more about that. I don’t think they are going to tell you anything, until the Mueller persecution is over, or the Congress forces them to give it up. The Mueller investigation superseded the FBI investigation and is nominally about Russian interference in the election. He has not caught anybody colluding yet. Trump has another 7 years to put this story in the graveyard of fake news. I doubt very much that he will let his agencies keep any secrets that would exonerate him and his people. What do you think about that? Make any sense, Ron?
Don asked: “Has any intel agency claimed they have any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion?”
In the late spring, the FBI began providing all of its evidence and that provided by other agencies to Congressional Oversight committees. They have been remarkably quiet about what they have learned.
Some speculation: If there were no unpublicized evidence, the Republicans would be claiming witch hunt. If there were unambiguous new evidence, the Dems would be leaking. So, my guess is that these committees have heard very concerning, but ambiguous, intelligence. Perhaps hints of two-way communication. What could be serious enough to scare both sides into silence for fear they will look like fools if the truth emerges later? (When have politicians ever kept quiet for fear of looking like fools?) Perhaps there is reason to hope Mueller can (or is?) obtain useful information from Flynn or Manafort. Maybe someone else can come up with a more compelling explanation for the relative silence since late spring/
Horsegrunt, Frank. You fabricate. The FBI does not share with congress the details of an ongoing and incomplete investigation. Nor can congress compel it to do so. Nor would they try.
mpainter wrote: “Horsegrunt, Frank. You fabricate. The FBI does not share with congress the details of an ongoing and incomplete investigation. Nor can congress compel it to do so. Nor would they try.”
Unlike you, I’m always happy to back up my “fabrications” with links to reliable sources. See FP article below. When you automatically accuse others of fabrication, you are simply exposing your own modus operandi.
However I never said – or meant to say – that details of a criminal investigation were being shared with Congress. Intelligence demonstrating Russian influence on our election was being shared in the spring. Perhaps we haven’t heard more from Congress about this intelligence because it has moved into the criminal investigation stage.
I believe Comey said that the FBI was sharing with Congress the documents it received from other agencies. I have been unable to verify Comey’s statement because that information has been buried in an avalanche of more sensational news.
“As Russia Investigation Widens, U.S. Lawmakers Get Rare Access to Raw Intel”
“After “significant negotiations,” the chairman and vice chairman got access to “categories and types of intelligence documents that have never been provided to Congress before” — even beyond what the Gang of Eight has received in the past.”
“While there has been some frustration in Congress with the intelligence community’s tendency to withhold sensitive information, the Russia investigation appears to be an example of greater cooperation. Intelligence analysts are spending more time with Hill staffers to provide context about the intelligence products being shared, and offering recommendations for more people to interview. On the Senate side, staffers have already interviewed more than 30 intelligence community professionals.”
“The materials are most likely derived from raw signals intelligence or intercepted digital communications, according to retired U.S. Navy Cmdr. Tim Johnson, who has extensive experience briefing intelligence professionals and Congress about intelligence programs. “Another possibility could be intelligence gathered from some sort of special access program,” wrote Johnson, a former spokesman for two National Security Agency directors, in an email to FP.”
But you did say and unless you retract, it stands as a fabrication. The FBI does not share “evidence” period. Frank.
mpainter: My apologies for confusing you SO BADLY. Most of us discussing the evidence of Russian attempt to influence our election are smart enough to know that evidence refers to intelligence, not the evidence the FBI will use in a courtroom. And I’m sorry you were incapable of understanding my clarification.
Congress did receive a great deal of information in the spring and has been relatively silent since. There was a dispute of documents obtaining documents discussing the Steele Dossier that appears to have been resolved after Congress issued a subpoena.
Perhaps the silence means that indictments or cooperation agreements are being prepared. Under normal circumstances, if Carter Page were a target, he probably wouldn’t have testified to Congress.
Is your last meant to be a retraction?
Your imprecise language is an index to your mode of thought.
Imprecise language? Mode of thought? When you can’t call sending 20,000 troops without Russian patches across the Ukrainian border Russia recognized in 1994 an “invasion”? And a unanimous Parliamentary vote to remove Yanukovych is called a coup? I “retracted” a “fabrication”? Surely your joking.
If you don’t retract an invention then a fabrication it is. You should acknowledge your error and withdraw your assertion.
Because the FBI does not “provide” evidence while an investigation is underway. Period.
mpainter: Your statement about the FBI releasing information during investigations was already addressed – twice. Now you add a straw man to your nonsense about retractions, fabrications, invasions and coups. Keep digging that hole – or not as you see fit.
The Russia investigation borders on issues that could – but hopefully won’t – reach as far as treason and impeachment. We already have a special prosecutor. And you don’t think the FBI is PRIVATELY sharing information with the intelligence oversight committees of Congress?
And so you double down on your fabrication by iteration. And the FBI has turned the investigation over to Mueller who you claim is in cahoots with whatever committee.
Don, actually I thought you guys would have seen the news; Clapper says he has changed his assessment. He can’t any longer say there is “no evidence of collusion.” He told CNN that all they had in January was evidence of meetings by members of his campaign. But now “more and more has come out. It is getting more and more compelling as time goes on,” Clapper told CNN. He also weighed as evidence against Trump his refusal to accept the Russian meddling.
Three weeks ago Clapper was defending the dossier on CNN, saying many parts of it have been verified and that it was originally funded by a “Republican candidate.” That was only a week or so before it was revealed that it wasn’t a Republican candidate but the owner of the Washington Free Beacon who hired Fusion GPS, and that had nothing to do with Russia or Steele dossier.
Don, my point is that you give great value to the powerful tools of knowledge that the US IC has on getting the correct picture. I see no evidence of that, now or in historical terms. I applaud the effort though. (And they did get Bin Laden.)
The central accusation of the dossier is collusion. The reason that CNN asks Clapper’s opinion is the assumption that product of the US IC supported the accusation. If they have no evidence or assessment after 16 months of being the most important national intelligence issue then this supports my view of the net value of the US IC.
You are apparently unaware that Clapper is a private citizen and committed dim partisan Obama hack. I didn’t bother to read the rest of it. I assume it is just more foolishness.
So you have faith in the workers just not the top brass, or at least when they work for Dems or if they step out the door of office. Unfortunately, the top brass control the spigot of reporting (and leaks). Any poor soul who might even have enough of the pieces to see a different picture is sworn to omerta under grave prospects.
Ron is right. It comes from the top (political appointees) and the grunts do what they need to do to gain advancement. The ones with integrity get held down or pushed aside. Some people fail to grasp the basics of the human condition.
Don, since you believe that the Russians were responsible for all the 2016 campaign meddling, including G2 and WL, but you believe the dossier is fake, what is your position on the motivation of meddling?
Choices:
A) Putin liked Trump better and tried to help and the dossier was a Clinton-paid-for active measure op.
B) Putin wanted to destabilize the US by stirring internal conflict by attacking whichever side was easier to attack and poisoning the other side by creating suspicions of collusion by feeding Steele the dossier info.
C) Putin wanted to embarrass the US by exposing Clintonian corruption. The dossier fabricated by Steele’s sources or Steele to supply what their paying customers wanted.
D) All the above
E) None of the above
I am still waiting to see evidence that the Russians meddled. G2, nope. Wikileaks, nope.
D.C. leaks, maybe, but show us evidence. It is a witch hunt and they are watching the moon to see one flit by on her broom.
In any event, cyber intrusions is not reason to condemn Russia without condemning ourselves.