Russia wouldn't have dared to interfere on Biden's and Barack's watch

Submitted by snoopydawg on Fri, 07/05/2019 - 7:29pm

[video:https://youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=nZnIUkgXDig]

Biden Proclaims Russian Meddling 'Wouldn't Have Happened On His And Barack's Watch'

Speaking with CNN's Chris Cuomo, the 2020 presidential contender insisted that the Kremlin's evil designs to influence geopolitical outcomes wouldn't happen under his watch, and didn't happen when he and President Obama were in the White House.

"Look at what’s happening with Putin," said Biden. "While Putin is trying to undo our elections, he is undoing elections in Europe. Look what’s happened in Hungary. Look what’s happened in Poland. Look what’s happened in Moldova. You think that would happen on my watch or Barack’s watch? You can’t answer that, but I promise you it wouldn’t have, and it didn’t."

So ole Vlad is undoing elections in Europe huh? What country in Europe had their election nullified? Bueller?

However we seem to be trying to undo the election in Venezuela right now and we undid the election in Ukraine. And we undid elections in over 50 countries according to William Blum.

ByeDone is losing his spot at the top because he can't stop saying things like this. Oh well, that top spot was manufactured anyway.

Psst...Joe. The Russians didn't interfere with Her's chance of playing president.

Here's a great article by Aaron Mate absolutely destroying the Mueller report. No one ever showed any evidence of Russia doing squat.

Tags:

Not ready for prime time

Vote

Comments

Submitted by Shahryar on Fri, 07/05/2019 - 7:48pm

But...but...

The whole Russia! thing is about how the Russians manipulated the electorate in 2016....Joe.

So...Joe....are you now saying they had nothing to do with the election?

These politicians are crazy to think we'll forget what they were telling us yesterday. Or are they? I bet a whole bunch of Dems will say "yes, the Russians meddle once Trump got in", no matter how much that conflicts with the Hillary fable.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 3:53am

Yep. He's another manufactured candidate.

I am amazed at how out of touch these professional politicians are with this nation.

I saw some statistics the other day showing that in every state in this nation (but one), the number one top priority of voters across the uniparty is health care reform. It's been number one for years and years.

What that means is that people are insecure about hanging on to their health care rights. And they need it to cost them only half as much as it currently does, because it is too expensive. People are aware that if the health care corporations are pleased to block 50 million Americans from receiving health care, then their family can easily be kicked out, too. People know that if they fall on hard times, they will likely lose their health care and never get it back again. They know if their drugs cost more than they can afford, they will simply be allowed to die. Or, their kids will be allowed to die. Or their parents....

That's the reason that health care is the number one issue for the American people. They are afraid to live without a health care guarantee from the highest authority in the land — the United States government. The majority of Americans are economically insecure about life and death issues — and they in fear for their lives because health care is not a human right for Americans.

The American people did not pick "health care" as their number one issue because they secretly want to form vigilante groups to kick undeserving people out of the health care system. They really don't want their kids riding the same schoolbus as a classmate with undiagnosed tuberculosis — because she is too poor to afford health care or because she is undocumented. They want their kids to live in a society that has "health security" so that they can stay healthy and stay alive.

So you tell me, how can any candidate who does not have a bold and immediate solution to the health care problem expect anyone to vote for them? Do they think they can win a presidential election just because they are not Donald Trump?

What is the one thing that Joe Biden is bringing? What's his big cause and mandate?

Is it "centrist moderation?" Is more-of-the-same all he's got?

The Democrats need a candidate with a bold plan for health care for everyone — a plan that is a hell of a lot cheaper than what it costs now. That's the only thing that can force Trump to reveal his own health care plan. That's what will make Trump vulnerable enough to lose. That's what will expose the reality that Trump has no such plan.

Most of the Democratic candidates don't have answers for the nation's most pressing issues. Most haven't really thought it through. What they have are big donors from the for-profit health care industry, just like Obama had. They have health care lobbyists who are going to write legislation for them, just like they did for Obama. The People need a candidate who will tell them that they don't need to buy private health care insurance to receive the best health care in America. Because that is already included in the national health care plan.

How can any candidate expect to win this election without that?

Submitted by lotlizard on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 1:50pm

Bernie on health care: somehow misled on what is “single payer”?

@Pluto's Republic
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/07/kip-sullivan-on-why-the-bernie-s...

The Democrats need a candidate with a bold plan for health care for everyone — a plan that is a hell of a lot cheaper than what it costs now.

I am amazed at how out of touch these professional politicians are with this nation.

I saw some statistics the other day showing that in every state in this nation (but one), the number one top priority of voters across the uniparty is health care reform. It's been number one for years and years.

What that means is that people are insecure about hanging on to their health care rights. And they need it to cost them only half as much as it currently does, because it is too expensive. People are aware that if the health care corporations are pleased to block 50 million Americans from receiving health care, then their family can easily be kicked out, too. People know that if they fall on hard times, they will likely lose their health care and never get it back again. They know if their drugs cost more than they can afford, they will simply be allowed to die. Or, their kids will be allowed to die. Or their parents....

That's the reason that health care is the number one issue for the American people. They are afraid to live without a health care guarantee from the highest authority in the land — the United States government. The majority of Americans are economically insecure about life and death issues — and they in fear for their lives because health care is not a human right for Americans.

The American people did not pick "health care" as their number one issue because they secretly want to form vigilante groups to kick undeserving people out of the health care system. They really don't want their kids riding the same schoolbus as a classmate with undiagnosed tuberculosis — because she is too poor to afford health care or because she is undocumented. They want their kids to live in a society that has "health security" so that they can stay healthy and stay alive.

So you tell me, how can any candidate who does not have a bold and immediate solution to the health care problem expect anyone to vote for them? Do they think they can win a presidential election just because they are not Donald Trump?

What is the one thing that Joe Biden is bringing? What's his big cause and mandate?

Is it "centrist moderation?" Is more-of-the-same all he's got?

The Democrats need a candidate with a bold plan for health care for everyone — a plan that is a hell of a lot cheaper than what it costs now. That's the only thing that can force Trump to reveal his own health care plan. That's what will make Trump vulnerable enough to lose. That's what will expose the reality that Trump has no such plan.

Most of the Democratic candidates don't have answers for the nation's most pressing issues. Most haven't really thought it through. What they have are big donors from the for-profit health care industry, just like Obama had. They have health care lobbyists who are going to write legislation for them, just like they did for Obama. The People need a candidate who will tell them that they don't need to buy private health care insurance to receive the best health care in America. Because that is already included in the national health care plan.

How can any candidate expect to win this election without that?

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 7:20pm

Anyone with a strong vision about national health care

@lotlizard @lotlizard

...has the advantage and the attention of the people. So far, everybody is riding coach and Bernie is still pulling the train. But maybe that will change.

Of course, Hillary and Obama had competing health care plans. Yet they both knew they were gaslighting the voters. They were taking big bucks from the privatized insurance predators and drug makers. They knew they couldn't bend the cost curve if they allowed front-loaded profiteering, but they knew the GOP would run interference and "stop" public health care. Everybody won but the people. Health care costs would continue to soar without single payer negotiations. Health care is arguably the most profitable business sector in the US — especially since taxpayers fund their research and get nothing in return.

I think the people may be wiser this time; watching for the familiar political tricks and listening for the weasel words. If they watched Trump stick it to the Chinese, then they know how to corral the health care predators.

Submitted by MrWebster on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 7:16pm

As Aron Mate has pointed out, Russiagate is fueled by elites.

@Pluto's Republic Started really in 2016 presidential debates where the two biggest subjects were China, Russia, and stuff related to that. Wikileaks had a graph showing times spent on various issues, and I remember that Russia/Trump was dominate issue.

One would think that the NY and DC elites and media would realized that health care was thee issue for Americans. It only became an issue when Bernie threatened the status quo.

But as Aron Mate has noted, Russiagate is being pushed by the DNC establishment and elite corporate media. Well, and the MIC and Congressional complex. They have no clue what is happening to everyday people.

I am amazed at how out of touch these professional politicians are with this nation.

I saw some statistics the other day showing that in every state in this nation (but one), the number one top priority of voters across the uniparty is health care reform. It's been number one for years and years.

What that means is that people are insecure about hanging on to their health care rights. And they need it to cost them only half as much as it currently does, because it is too expensive. People are aware that if the health care corporations are pleased to block 50 million Americans from receiving health care, then their family can easily be kicked out, too. People know that if they fall on hard times, they will likely lose their health care and never get it back again. They know if their drugs cost more than they can afford, they will simply be allowed to die. Or, their kids will be allowed to die. Or their parents....

That's the reason that health care is the number one issue for the American people. They are afraid to live without a health care guarantee from the highest authority in the land — the United States government. The majority of Americans are economically insecure about life and death issues — and they in fear for their lives because health care is not a human right for Americans.

The American people did not pick "health care" as their number one issue because they secretly want to form vigilante groups to kick undeserving people out of the health care system. They really don't want their kids riding the same schoolbus as a classmate with undiagnosed tuberculosis — because she is too poor to afford health care or because she is undocumented. They want their kids to live in a society that has "health security" so that they can stay healthy and stay alive.

So you tell me, how can any candidate who does not have a bold and immediate solution to the health care problem expect anyone to vote for them? Do they think they can win a presidential election just because they are not Donald Trump?

What is the one thing that Joe Biden is bringing? What's his big cause and mandate?

Is it "centrist moderation?" Is more-of-the-same all he's got?

The Democrats need a candidate with a bold plan for health care for everyone — a plan that is a hell of a lot cheaper than what it costs now. That's the only thing that can force Trump to reveal his own health care plan. That's what will make Trump vulnerable enough to lose. That's what will expose the reality that Trump has no such plan.

Most of the Democratic candidates don't have answers for the nation's most pressing issues. Most haven't really thought it through. What they have are big donors from the for-profit health care industry, just like Obama had. They have health care lobbyists who are going to write legislation for them, just like they did for Obama. The People need a candidate who will tell them that they don't need to buy private health care insurance to receive the best health care in America. Because that is already included in the national health care plan.

How can any candidate expect to win this election without that?

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 8:05pm

Exactly so.

... @MrWebster , we can see that they are blinded. But I can't figure out what they think they are doing. They seem to be following some old campaign scripts, reciting platitudes that have no real meaning. 2016 changed everything and they haven't noticed.

One would think that the NY and DC elites and media would realized that health care was thee issue for Americans. It only became an issue when Bernie threatened the status quo.

I don't think anyone expected Bernie to pull the health care rabbit out of the hat. But his words instantly galvanized the nation. Democrats were the incumbent party, so Hillary was forced to run on more of the same in deference to Obama. But Bernie respected no such constraints. He told people about the kinds of rights they deserve and it changed how they saw themselves.

Hillary denied Bernie's vision and dug in her heels for incrementalism. In that moment she lost the election before she even won the Primary. She was angry and off balance for the rest of her campaign.

But as Aron Mate has noted, Russiagate is being pushed by the DNC establishment.... They have no clue what is happening to everyday people.

I find that spooky and unnatural. They make no promises. They don't even have a strategy. They conveniently flip their political views if they are criticized. It's creepy.

Submitted by FuturePassed on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 8:38pm

It's a big tent.

@Pluto's Republic
And you ain't in it.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 10:32pm

The republicans are going along with the Russia Gate saga too

@MrWebster

Not the part of Trump's being installed by Putin, but that they interfered with the election part. As you point out it's so the defense companies and the military can get more money. This was one of the biggest defense budgets since early in the Bush years.

I've been repeating that email spishing story, but according to Binney that wasn't how the Podesta emails got released. He says that there is information on the emails that show that they were put on a thumb drive or DVD and given to Wikileaks.

Speaking of them let's keep Julian and Chelsea in our thoughts as they are both still in prison.

—

Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.

Submitted by Sirena on Fri, 07/05/2019 - 8:42pm

Let me say this simply.

He’s an idiot.

Submitted by Battle of Blair... on Fri, 07/05/2019 - 8:48pm

True enough, but he's not a moron

@Sirena I mean, I presume he knows the British didn't really lose their airfields in the battle of 1812...

Submitted by Sirena on Fri, 07/05/2019 - 11:42pm

It’s a fine distinction

@Battle of Blair Mountain

And I for one would not presume too much about his finely attuned knowledge.
when after all, we aren’t talking 2-3 decades ago, when his memory might have failed him but rather just a couple of years back when he was VP.

This insert foot into the .mouth statement, yet again, when he didn’t even assert that the Russians did it, gotta be a problem his party’s bottom line!

Submitted by snoopydawg on Fri, 07/05/2019 - 9:05pm

"Pokémon...go to the polls"

I despise Hillary Clinton so much. pic.twitter.com/nxJpKg5LNZ

— Currie Dobson (@Ventuckyspaz) July 6, 2019

—

Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.

Submitted by on the cusp on Fri, 07/05/2019 - 10:01pm

If Hillary is correct about Russian interference,

then Obama and Biden were ineffective. Think low testosterone.
What a mess, the Biden camp and Hillary camp in a disagreement?
How do you make Russiagate split the Democratic Party?
Hillary's theory vs. Biden's theory.
How do you bend over all Americans?
Start the theory from Day 1 of Trumps ascension to the throne.
Date and time stamps are our friends. OURS. Not Biden's.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by snoopydawg on Fri, 07/05/2019 - 10:55pm

McConnell wouldn't let Obama warn us about Russia

@on the cusp

This has got to be the silliest meme evah! Russia was dead set on interfering with the election, but mean old Mitch had more power over the country than Barry did. Doesn't anyone understand how silly that sounds? Obama was the most powerful man in the world, but the GOP senate leader told him what he could do.

Mueller just took Brennan's word for it that Russia did the deed. Brennan never showed us the proof either which Aaron goes into detail pointing out. Would love to post this on ToP.

—

Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.

Submitted by Pricknick on Fri, 07/05/2019 - 11:43pm

Just do it.

@snoopydawg
Don't tell me your not adept enough.
Never tell me you don't have the tools to make it happen.
Please tell me you don't want to stain yourself in orange.
But you can do it.

Would love to post this on ToP.

Just do it.

—

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

Submitted by Hawkfish on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 12:45am

Exactly

@on the cusp

The claims that “it wouldn’t have happened on our watch” and “Russia interfered” are contradictory.

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

Submitted by wokkamile on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 1:52pm

Not to mention

@Hawkfish rattling on and on about Russia and throwing in a supposed threat to Nato are not winning campaign themes. Last I heard, the public couldn't care less about Russia, Putin or threats to Nato's existence. He is not going to score political points beyond his narrow and shallow existing centrist support, those already interested in promoting regime-change and other neolibcon adventures.

There is also no evidence that Russia either sought to manipulate our last election or is trying to influence Euro elections. Totally fact-free jabbering by Biden.

Hillary decided to position herself on the right in the FP area last time and got out maneuvered by Trump coming from the left. I doubt if repeating this hawkish attitude will work next time.

Submitted by Pricknick on Fri, 07/05/2019 - 10:31pm

Hey Joe

[video:https://youtu.be/W3JsuWz4xWc]

—

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Fri, 07/05/2019 - 11:50pm

Watch this with the sound off

Sexual assault survivor in Iowa tells Biden she was horrified by Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Court and wants to know how Dems will counter the GOP's Court takeover: "I just want to know what the plan is?"

Biden, in reply, basically admits he has no plan. pic.twitter.com/jIfk0hm149

— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) July 5, 2019

What is your first impression?

—

Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.

Submitted by Pricknick on Fri, 07/05/2019 - 11:57pm

In all reality

@snoopydawg
what would be your reply?
They didn't take it over. It was handed to them by democrats.
It was a planned coup and it's working just as planned.

—

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 1:26am

I'm not talking about his answer here

@Pricknick

This is why I said watch it with the sound off. But I'm not sure what the rules are to put more justices on the court. Joe says that it will take a constitutional amendment, but I've heard otherwise. Obama let McConnell block Garland. The democrats had many ways to force him to bring him up for a vote.

—

Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.

Submitted by wokkamile on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 2:54am

If joe said it takes

@snoopydawg a Con amendment, he is wrong. It just needs a bill passed into law by Congress to adjust the number of justices. FDR was going to do it ca 1937 but got pushback and backed away. There is nothing in the Con that decrees a certain fixed number of justices, and historically the number has varied in the past.

As to the mildly moderate Merrick Garland, absolutely agree -- Obama and Co did nothing to put the pressure on Mitch to get that nom through the senate. Obama, once known for his great speaking ability and knack for getting people on board with him, decided to play nice and polite. Shortly after the nomination announcement, and McConnell's statement that it wouldn't be proper in an election year, the public heard nothing more about it the entire year. A major Obama failure where he didn't even bother to take to the bully pulpit to engage the issue in public.

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Sun, 07/07/2019 - 9:54am

Actually, FDR cut a deal

@wokkamile

that he would stop pushing for an increase in the number of Supreme Court judges if the Supreme Court would drop their opposition to his programs. It was already too late for some programs (the National Industrial Recovery Act, for instance), but he was able to get some important things done (I think Social Security was passed after the deal-cutting, but not certain.)

FDR was neither a wuss nor a fool - he was a very shrewd, pragmatic politician.

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by wokkamile on Sun, 07/07/2019 - 12:37pm

Um, not sure about

@TheOtherMaven that, or any agreement and quid pro quo. There was the agreement by conservative Justice Owen Roberts to stop blocking ND programs, but that occurred before FDR's court packing proposal.

The addition of justices proposal had its roots in a law from early in the Depression which cut in half the justices pensions, making them inclined to stay on the Bench longer with their full pay. The FDR plan fizzled out when a congressional bill to restore full pay pensions passed, then when one of the older Justices retired.

Re the Social Security bill, iirc that passed in 1935, before the 1937 court proposal.

Submitted by wokkamile on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 3:03am

Having now listened

@snoopydawg to the video, Biden seems to be replying both about court packing and term limits when he says you need a constitutional amendment.

On the term limits, that would have to be done by amendment, as the Con speaks of justices "holding their offices during good behavior".

Submitted by Hawkfish on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 12:49am

First impression?

@snoopydawg

“Get your hands off me and stop waving your finger in my face!”

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

Submitted by dfarrah on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 9:06am

Yeah, and

@snoopydawg @Hawkfish see how he keeps getting closer and closer?

bleah.

—

dfarrah

Submitted by Jen on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 8:59am

No problem

@snoopydawg I couldn't hear it if I wanted to.
He's being really creepy. Holding her hand while pointing a finger at her. Leaning in towards her and invading her space. I would have backed away from him.

Submitted by dfarrah on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 9:16am

So would I.

@Jen I hate it when people crowd me.

Yet another example of a women being too 'nice' to do what is called for - pulling the hand away and moving away, if not outright stating stop touching me.

—

dfarrah

Submitted by wokkamile on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 10:05am

C'mon -- at least

@dfarrah he didn't sniff her hair, let's credit him for that. I would call that progress. Showing his true progressive self.

Otoh, didn't this woman get the memo from a few months ago, widely reported in the papers, that this is Touchy-Feely Uncle Joe, your Up Close and Personal candidate for president?

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 7:55pm

Hawkfish, dfarrah and Jen

@Jen

all saw what I saw in the video. Biden is in her space and waving his hands and fingers kept getting closer to her breasts or at least pointing at them.

One lesson I learned when someone got in my personal space is to take a step towards them. Make them back up and not yourself. Try it if you get the chance to and see how it works.

—

Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.

Submitted by EdMass on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 1:35pm

Deer in the headlights

@snoopydawg

comes to mind when viewed without sound.

Has he actually out-Botoxed Kerry?

—

Prof: Nancy! I’m going to Greece!
Nancy: And swim the English Channel?
Prof: No. No. To ancient Greece where burning Sapho stood beside the wine dark sea. Wa de do da! Nancy, I’ve invented a time machine!

Firesign Theater

Stop the War!

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 6:02am

That's Aaron Mate piece you linked to

...really hit the spot.

Asked for comment, Special Counsel spokesman Peter Carr declined to answer whether the Mueller team relied on CrowdStrike for its allegations against the GRU. Carr referred queries to the Justice Department's National Security Division, which declined to comment, and to the U.S. Western District of Pennsylvania, which did not respond.

If CrowdStrike's role in the investigation raises a red flag, the potential exclusion of another entity raises an equally glaring one. According to former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney, the NSA is the only U.S. agency that could conclusively determine the source of the alleged DNC email hacks. "If this was really an internet hack, the NSA could easily tell us when the information was taken and the route it took after being removed from the [DNC] server," Binney says. But given Mueller's qualified language and his repeated use of "in or around" rather than outlining specific, down-to-the-second timestamps – which the NSA could provide -- Binney is skeptical that NSA intelligence was included in the GRU indictment and the report.

There has been no public confirmation that intelligence acquired by the NSA was used in the Mueller probe. Asked whether any of its information had been used in the allegations against the GRU, or had been declassified for public release in Mueller's investigation, a spokesperson for the National Security Agency declined to comment.

Redacted CrowdStrike Reports

While the extent of the FBI's reliance on CrowdStrike remains unclear, critical details are beginning to emerge via an unlikely source: the legal case of Roger Stone – the Trump adviser Mueller indicted for, among other things, allegedly lying to Congress about his failed efforts to learn about WikiLeaks' plans regarding Clinton’s emails.

Lawyers for Stone discovered that CrowdStrike submitted three forensic reports to the FBI that were redacted and in draft form. When Stone asked to see CrowdStrike's un-redacted versions, prosecutors made the explosive admission that the U.S. government does not have them. "The government … does not possess the information the defendant seeks," prosecutor Jessie Liu wrote. This is because, Liu explained, CrowdStrike itself redacted the reports that it provided to the government:

At the direction of the DNC and DCCC’s legal counsel, CrowdStrike prepared three draft reports. Copies of these reports were subsequently produced voluntarily to the government by counsel for the DNC and DCCC. At the time of the voluntary production, counsel for the DNC told the government that the redacted material concerned steps taken to remediate the attack and to harden the DNC and DCCC systems against future attack. According to counsel, no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.

.

In other words, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party’s legal counsel to decide what it could and could not see in reports on Russian hacking, thereby surrendering the ability to independently vet their claims. The government also took CrowdStrike's word that "no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors."

I knew Mueller's outrageous arrest of Roger Stone would be the gift that keeps on giving.

It was CrowdStrike who invented Russia Gate. The corrupt Deep State operatives brought in Christopher Steele to implicate Trump and then ran with it.

The RingMaster is the Cllinton's lawfirm Perkins Coie.

They hired CrowdStrike to perform the analysis of the DNC servers – they contracted with Fusion GPS, the Washington, D.C.-based opposition research firm that produced the now discredited Steele dossier alleging salacious misconduct by Trump in Russia and his susceptibility to blackmail.

The Russians have been working on their own investigative Report. Some of you might find this PDF very useful in the future:

The RussiaGate Hysteria — A Case of Severe Russiaphobia

Submitted by Centaurea on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 7:17am

Perkins Coie

@Pluto's Republic
is also the law firm for the DNC, the DSCC, the DCCC, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), numerous state Democratic parties, Emily's List, various super PACs, and a great many Dem politicians and political campaigns over the years.

The head lawyer at Perkins Coie representing and advising the Dems is Marc Elias. He appears in many of the emails published by Wikileaks.

Perkins Coie has their fingers in a lot of nasty pies, and their fingerprints on a lot of smoking guns. "Ringmaster" is a good way to describe their role.

...really hit the spot.

Asked for comment, Special Counsel spokesman Peter Carr declined to answer whether the Mueller team relied on CrowdStrike for its allegations against the GRU. Carr referred queries to the Justice Department's National Security Division, which declined to comment, and to the U.S. Western District of Pennsylvania, which did not respond.

If CrowdStrike's role in the investigation raises a red flag, the potential exclusion of another entity raises an equally glaring one. According to former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney, the NSA is the only U.S. agency that could conclusively determine the source of the alleged DNC email hacks. "If this was really an internet hack, the NSA could easily tell us when the information was taken and the route it took after being removed from the [DNC] server," Binney says. But given Mueller's qualified language and his repeated use of "in or around" rather than outlining specific, down-to-the-second timestamps – which the NSA could provide -- Binney is skeptical that NSA intelligence was included in the GRU indictment and the report.

There has been no public confirmation that intelligence acquired by the NSA was used in the Mueller probe. Asked whether any of its information had been used in the allegations against the GRU, or had been declassified for public release in Mueller's investigation, a spokesperson for the National Security Agency declined to comment.

Redacted CrowdStrike Reports

While the extent of the FBI's reliance on CrowdStrike remains unclear, critical details are beginning to emerge via an unlikely source: the legal case of Roger Stone – the Trump adviser Mueller indicted for, among other things, allegedly lying to Congress about his failed efforts to learn about WikiLeaks' plans regarding Clinton’s emails.

Lawyers for Stone discovered that CrowdStrike submitted three forensic reports to the FBI that were redacted and in draft form. When Stone asked to see CrowdStrike's un-redacted versions, prosecutors made the explosive admission that the U.S. government does not have them. "The government … does not possess the information the defendant seeks," prosecutor Jessie Liu wrote. This is because, Liu explained, CrowdStrike itself redacted the reports that it provided to the government:

At the direction of the DNC and DCCC’s legal counsel, CrowdStrike prepared three draft reports. Copies of these reports were subsequently produced voluntarily to the government by counsel for the DNC and DCCC. At the time of the voluntary production, counsel for the DNC told the government that the redacted material concerned steps taken to remediate the attack and to harden the DNC and DCCC systems against future attack. According to counsel, no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.

.

In other words, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party’s legal counsel to decide what it could and could not see in reports on Russian hacking, thereby surrendering the ability to independently vet their claims. The government also took CrowdStrike's word that "no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors."

.

I knew Mueller's outrageous arrest of Roger Stone would be the gift that keeps on giving.

It was CrowdStrike who invented Russia Gate. The corrupt Deep State operatives brought in Christopher Steele to implicate Trump and then ran with it.

The RingMaster is the Cllinton's lawfirm Perkins Coie.

They hired CrowdStrike to perform the analysis of the DNC servers – they contracted with Fusion GPS, the Washington, D.C.-based opposition research firm that produced the now discredited Steele dossier alleging salacious misconduct by Trump in Russia and his susceptibility to blackmail.

::

The Russians have been working on their own investigative Report. Some of you might find this PDF very useful in the future:

The RussiaGate Hysteria — A Case of Severe Russiaphobia

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 9:56am

Let's sum this up, shall we?

@Centaurea

You tell us that:

Perkins Coie is also the law firm for the DNC, the DSCC, the DCCC.... The head lawyer at Perkins Coie representing and advising the Dems is Marc Elias.

Yes. And the quote within the quote in my comment, above, tells us that it was Perkins Coie who redacted the allegedly "hacked" DNC server files — in effect, withholding select evidence from the Intelligence Community:

At the direction of the DNC and DCCC’s legal counsel, CrowdStrike prepared three draft reports. Copies of these reports were subsequently produced voluntarily to the government by counsel for the DNC and DCCC. At the time of the voluntary production, counsel for the DNC told the government that the redacted material concerned [CrowdStrike trade secrets]. According to counsel, no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.

If those CrowdSrrike redactions by head lawyer Marc Elias did not contain evidence that Russia hacked the DNC, then CrowdStrike had no such evidence. The Intelligence Community saw no such evidence. And Mueller saw no such evidence. Because evidence of Russia hacking the DNC server does not exist.

Marc Elias, by the way, was the same lawyer who deleted Hillary's emails from her server — allegedly emails that did not pertain to her State Department work. However, from those deletions, the FBI extracted and undeleted tens of thousands of relevant emails, (which had somehow been backed up on Anthony Weiner's laptop) including classified correspondence between Obama and Hillary. But the FBI never charged Elias with obstruction, did they? Simultaneously, the FBI was also working with CrowdStrike documents that they knew were also redacted by Marc Elias. Yet, they readily took his word about those deletions.

Both of these investigations were thoroughly contaminated.

Submitted by EdMass on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 1:42pm

Elias led the case for Franken

@Pluto's Republic

Meanwhile, Franken’s lawyers, (led by Marc Elias, former general counsel to John Kerry’s 2004 Presidential Campaign)

—

Firesign Theater

Stop the War!

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 8:07pm

Guess who Marc Elias is playing with now?

@Centaurea

None other than Kamillary Harris. Yep. I'll try to find the article on this if anyone wants to read it.
Just one big happy family those Clinton democrats.

—

Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 8:04pm

Great job on this, Pluto

@Pluto's Republic

This essay by Aaron should put a cork in everything Russia Gate in my opinion. He shows that Mueller doesn't base his report on anything substantial and just lots of maybes and innuendos. As did Brennan and others that were involved in it.

Bottom line is the whole thing was made up by Hillary's campaign so that no one would talk about the content of the Wikileaks stuff. But I read something about how the rest of it was cooked up back in 2014 or so. The Manafort information had been given to the Obama administration by Ukraine, but they just sat on it to use it later. Like nobody knew that Manafort wasn't registered as a foreign lobbyist and was cheating on his taxes.

And Mueller or whoever using SWAT to arrest Stone was way over the top including tipping off the media to film his arrest. It be a great joke on the whole team that did this if it was his case that blew the lid off Russia Gate and got people to wake up.

...really hit the spot.

Asked for comment, Special Counsel spokesman Peter Carr declined to answer whether the Mueller team relied on CrowdStrike for its allegations against the GRU. Carr referred queries to the Justice Department's National Security Division, which declined to comment, and to the U.S. Western District of Pennsylvania, which did not respond.

If CrowdStrike's role in the investigation raises a red flag, the potential exclusion of another entity raises an equally glaring one. According to former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney, the NSA is the only U.S. agency that could conclusively determine the source of the alleged DNC email hacks. "If this was really an internet hack, the NSA could easily tell us when the information was taken and the route it took after being removed from the [DNC] server," Binney says. But given Mueller's qualified language and his repeated use of "in or around" rather than outlining specific, down-to-the-second timestamps – which the NSA could provide -- Binney is skeptical that NSA intelligence was included in the GRU indictment and the report.

There has been no public confirmation that intelligence acquired by the NSA was used in the Mueller probe. Asked whether any of its information had been used in the allegations against the GRU, or had been declassified for public release in Mueller's investigation, a spokesperson for the National Security Agency declined to comment.

Redacted CrowdStrike Reports

While the extent of the FBI's reliance on CrowdStrike remains unclear, critical details are beginning to emerge via an unlikely source: the legal case of Roger Stone – the Trump adviser Mueller indicted for, among other things, allegedly lying to Congress about his failed efforts to learn about WikiLeaks' plans regarding Clinton’s emails.

Lawyers for Stone discovered that CrowdStrike submitted three forensic reports to the FBI that were redacted and in draft form. When Stone asked to see CrowdStrike's un-redacted versions, prosecutors made the explosive admission that the U.S. government does not have them. "The government … does not possess the information the defendant seeks," prosecutor Jessie Liu wrote. This is because, Liu explained, CrowdStrike itself redacted the reports that it provided to the government:

At the direction of the DNC and DCCC’s legal counsel, CrowdStrike prepared three draft reports. Copies of these reports were subsequently produced voluntarily to the government by counsel for the DNC and DCCC. At the time of the voluntary production, counsel for the DNC told the government that the redacted material concerned steps taken to remediate the attack and to harden the DNC and DCCC systems against future attack. According to counsel, no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.

.

In other words, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party’s legal counsel to decide what it could and could not see in reports on Russian hacking, thereby surrendering the ability to independently vet their claims. The government also took CrowdStrike's word that "no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors."

.

I knew Mueller's outrageous arrest of Roger Stone would be the gift that keeps on giving.

It was CrowdStrike who invented Russia Gate. The corrupt Deep State operatives brought in Christopher Steele to implicate Trump and then ran with it.

The RingMaster is the Cllinton's lawfirm Perkins Coie.

They hired CrowdStrike to perform the analysis of the DNC servers – they contracted with Fusion GPS, the Washington, D.C.-based opposition research firm that produced the now discredited Steele dossier alleging salacious misconduct by Trump in Russia and his susceptibility to blackmail.

::

The Russians have been working on their own investigative Report. Some of you might find this PDF very useful in the future:

The RussiaGate Hysteria — A Case of Severe Russiaphobia

—

Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 11:04pm

Moon of Alabama discusses Aaron's essay

@Pluto's Republic

Here's two interesting comments from it.

But why? Why did they do this? What was the intention of smearing Trump via Russiagate?

For Hillary to win? Well, Russiagate wasn't enough for her to win - and it never have been given her own problems with national security. At best, unfounded allegations of Trump being "compromised" would only act to negate Hillary's own national security negatives in the eyes of voters.

But IMO Russiagate was about much more than Hillary's campaign: it was meant to initiate a new McCarthyism. Why do I think that? Because the US Deep State was shocked by Russia's defense of their interests in Syria and Ukraine in 2013 and 2014. That wasn't supposed to happen. Russia was defeated! They needed USA investment! They needed to export to USA's European poodles!

That shock prompted Kissinger to write an Op-Ed in August 2014 that warned of breakdown in the World Order and argued for something much like MAGA to meet the challenge from Russia and China. 10 months later, Trump enter the race for the Republican nomination and he was the only MAGA candidate and the only populist on the right (out of 10 candidates!) - a combination that would allow him to sweep aside all challengers.

But to actually initiate a new McCarthyism, TRUMP HAD TO BE THE WINNER.

The fact is, it's very difficult to dramatically influence public opinion. 3-4 months of allegations during a campaign isn't enough. It just isn't. But Trump hate + constant MSM speculation of Trump-Putin connection over 18+ months would do the trick.

For over a year, I've argued that Sanders was Hillary's sheepdog and Hillary threw the race to Trump because no seasoned politician would have alienated key voter groups like she did, or fail to campaign in the 3 states she knew would decide the outcome. Yet despite this being the best explanation for what happened (as it explains much of the weirdness of the election and its aftermath) and is consistent with the Deep State's need for a nationalist to meet the challenge from Russia and China (as expressed by ), no one has mentioned this theory.

LOL. Scams work best when the mark can't see the game that's being played on him/her. And the even the smarties at MoA STILL can't see it.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 5 2019 23:16 utc | 37

I've thought this since Trump won. There was no way that the PTB would have let Trump be president if they didn't want him to be. I thought that they let him be it because Hillary would never have been able to do what he is without huge blowback from the base. Think she would have been able to get the tax bill passed? Nope..

...really hit the spot.

Asked for comment, Special Counsel spokesman Peter Carr declined to answer whether the Mueller team relied on CrowdStrike for its allegations against the GRU. Carr referred queries to the Justice Department's National Security Division, which declined to comment, and to the U.S. Western District of Pennsylvania, which did not respond.

If CrowdStrike's role in the investigation raises a red flag, the potential exclusion of another entity raises an equally glaring one. According to former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney, the NSA is the only U.S. agency that could conclusively determine the source of the alleged DNC email hacks. "If this was really an internet hack, the NSA could easily tell us when the information was taken and the route it took after being removed from the [DNC] server," Binney says. But given Mueller's qualified language and his repeated use of "in or around" rather than outlining specific, down-to-the-second timestamps – which the NSA could provide -- Binney is skeptical that NSA intelligence was included in the GRU indictment and the report.

There has been no public confirmation that intelligence acquired by the NSA was used in the Mueller probe. Asked whether any of its information had been used in the allegations against the GRU, or had been declassified for public release in Mueller's investigation, a spokesperson for the National Security Agency declined to comment.

Redacted CrowdStrike Reports

While the extent of the FBI's reliance on CrowdStrike remains unclear, critical details are beginning to emerge via an unlikely source: the legal case of Roger Stone – the Trump adviser Mueller indicted for, among other things, allegedly lying to Congress about his failed efforts to learn about WikiLeaks' plans regarding Clinton’s emails.

Lawyers for Stone discovered that CrowdStrike submitted three forensic reports to the FBI that were redacted and in draft form. When Stone asked to see CrowdStrike's un-redacted versions, prosecutors made the explosive admission that the U.S. government does not have them. "The government … does not possess the information the defendant seeks," prosecutor Jessie Liu wrote. This is because, Liu explained, CrowdStrike itself redacted the reports that it provided to the government:

At the direction of the DNC and DCCC’s legal counsel, CrowdStrike prepared three draft reports. Copies of these reports were subsequently produced voluntarily to the government by counsel for the DNC and DCCC. At the time of the voluntary production, counsel for the DNC told the government that the redacted material concerned steps taken to remediate the attack and to harden the DNC and DCCC systems against future attack. According to counsel, no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.

.

In other words, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party’s legal counsel to decide what it could and could not see in reports on Russian hacking, thereby surrendering the ability to independently vet their claims. The government also took CrowdStrike's word that "no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors."

.

I knew Mueller's outrageous arrest of Roger Stone would be the gift that keeps on giving.

It was CrowdStrike who invented Russia Gate. The corrupt Deep State operatives brought in Christopher Steele to implicate Trump and then ran with it.

The RingMaster is the Cllinton's lawfirm Perkins Coie.

They hired CrowdStrike to perform the analysis of the DNC servers – they contracted with Fusion GPS, the Washington, D.C.-based opposition research firm that produced the now discredited Steele dossier alleging salacious misconduct by Trump in Russia and his susceptibility to blackmail.

::

The Russians have been working on their own investigative Report. Some of you might find this PDF very useful in the future:

The RussiaGate Hysteria — A Case of Severe Russiaphobia

—

Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 07/06/2019 - 11:25pm

Mueller vs. Internet Research Agency

If anyone is interested in reading about this case you can find it here.

lol..I can't believe that Mueller is still going along with this. Exactly what can he charge them with? Placing some ads on Facebook after the election was over?

—

Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.