Russian influence indictments

[DTwnDawg]

Hillary Clinton approved dissemination of Trump-Russian bank allegations to media, campaign manager testifies

Hillary Clinton signed off on leaking allegations of a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank to the media.

www.foxnews.com

 

[willdup]

Do me a favor, step back and think about this… Why did Russia wait until Biden was in office to attack Ukraine? If Trump and the Republican Party is the Russian agent in all of this, why wait until he’s out of office? Think about this rationally, you’ve seen Kamala Harris and how she communicates. Do you think Putin is scared of her? It makes far more sense to support her when she loves flip flopping on issues than Trump who’s considered the loose cannon.

Not only is there a simple answer, it’s been provided by Trump’s own National Security Advisor.

It’s not complicated. A US withdrawal from NATO would be the top of Putin’s wishlist and an attack on Ukraine while Trump was campaigning for a second term would tie Trump’s hands, likely contribute to Trump losing the election and harden NATO resolve. Once Trump lost the election, Putin knew he wasn’t going to get to watch NATO be dismantled by Trump so roll the tanks.

Again, it’s not my theory or some left wing conspiracy. John Bolton is about as aggressive a hawk as you will ever find. A second Trump term and Putin likely gets everything he wants regarding Ukraine and at a much lower cost.

 

[willdup]

1. I'm actually being the opposite of pedantic, as I'm taking the broader view, here. You're getting down into the weeds of a subject's views, that I'm saying are irrelevant for the larger argument: We would all do better to hear the views of those we disagree with.

2. The irony that you would quote David Corn, of all journalists, to make an argument against "boosterism, validation, and platforming" is so thick, I almost think you're trolling. But, I know you're not, because as I've pointed out to you more than once: You hold 'right' leaning journalists (and subsequently, posters here that quote them) to standards that you yourself do not follow. From the Krassenteins, to MeidasTouch, Aaron Rupar, etc. and now David Corn...you must recognize the biased nature of many of your sources.

It's why I go out of my way to bring evidence/quotes from leaft-leaning sources.

Unless you are suggesting that the tweet by Cooper stating that the Nazi invasion of France was “infinitely preferable in virtually every way” to the recent Olympics opening ceremony is fake, I don’t care if it was reposted by Satan himself. It doesn’t matter. The offensive tweet is not altered in any way by who reposted it, other than giving you an excuse to ignore it and complain about the bias of the person who shared it instead of the incredibly offensive opinion of the guy Tucker just spent nearly two hours showering with praise while increasing his visibility.

 

[atlanta cock#]

I think I've decided that you are being intentionally pedantic at this point.

Tucker touted this guy as likely the smartest, most honest historian out there. He delivers on that initial validation throughout the interview, agreeing with Cooper, commenting on the intelligence of his positions and expanding upon these same historically absurd assertions. He never challenges these claims, even ones as offensive as the specific example I provided above.

By any definition, that's not journalism. That's boosterism, validation and platforming.

Here is what Mr. Cooper believes. Perhaps Tucker could have found it in himself to question or criticize ANY of his positions. Apparently not.

View embedded media

If you don't understand what Putin is doing here, which is so obvious it's laughable, it's likely beyond my capacity to explain it to you.

David Corn.

My lord. Why don't you quote David Duke on the virtues of the black community.

 

[willdup]

David Corn.

My lord. Why don't you quote David Duke on the virtues of the black community.

Read the post above and if you insist on commenting, you can comment on the pro-Nazi tweet from the guy Tucker claims is the best and most honest historian today.

 

[Moosefish]

Unless you are suggesting that the tweet by Cooper stating that the Nazi invasion of France was “infinitely preferable in virtually every way” to the recent Olympics opening ceremony is fake, I don’t care if it was reposted by Satan himself. It doesn’t matter. The offensive tweet is not altered in any way by who reposted it, other than giving you an excuse to ignore it and complain about the bias of the person who shared it instead of the incredibly offensive opinion of the guy Tucker just spent nearly two hours showering with praise while increasing his visibility.

1. For someone that just accused me of being pedantic, this is rich. I'm not going to chase your strawmen if you continually refuse to actually engage with me on what my point was since my very first post in this thread to you was about.

2. To engage in this with you, I'd have to accept the fact that a journalist interviewing anybody can ever be a 'bad thing' (I don't) and I'd have to accept your use of the term 'platforming', which is a tool used to silence others.

 

[55dawg]

Last year in my son's 4th grade history class he wanted to give a little report on Frederick Douglass to his class because he's his favorite historical figure...and his teacher said no. She said it may make other kids uncomfortable. He wasn't going to reenact Roots just read a report he'd spent time on make about someone he admired. How F'd up is that. That's where we are in this country right now

I don’t believe this.

 

[willdup]

For someone that just accused me of being pedantic, this is rich. I'm not going to chase your strawmen if you continually refuse to actually engage with me on what my point was since my very first post in this thread to you was about.

I think I've answered your question over and over again by delineating the difference between a journalistic, even-handed interview with someone who has extremely controversial views, and the repeated endorsement of and promotion of those controversial views, which is what Tucker engages in from start to finish.

I referenced another example from Tucker and now share it for your review. This isn't journalism, this is shilling for Putin. You should be able to discern the difference if you choose to.

 

[ToddBburn]

I think I've answered your question over and over again by delineating the difference between a journalistic, even-handed interview with someone who has extremely controversial views, and the repeated endorsement of and promotion of those controversial views, which is what Tucker engages in from start to finish.

I referenced another example from Tucker and now share it for your review. This isn't journalism, this is shilling for Putin. You should be able to discern the difference if you choose to.

View embedded media

Last year in my son's 4th grade history class he wanted to give a little report on Frederick Douglass to his class because he's his favorite historical figure...and his teacher said no. She said it may make other kids uncomfortable. He wasn't going to reenact Roots just read a report he'd spent time on make about someone he admired. How F'd up is that. That's where we are in this country right now

That is where very few people are if that is what really happened. That is the exception and not the norm.. That is not where most people today. Everything that is bad gets sensationalized to point people believe things are more widespread than they truly are.
We need to focus on the good and call out the bad when it happens for sure. We have become a society that recognizes what is wrong more than we recognize and laud what is right. If we put things in the right order we would see a dramatic change in so many areas of our lives.

 

[DTwnDawg]

1. For someone that just accused me of being pedantic, this is rich. I'm not going to chase your strawmen if you continually refuse to actually engage with me on what my point was since my very first post in this thread to you was about.

2. To engage in this with you, I'd have to accept the fact that a journalist interviewing anybody can ever be a 'bad thing' (I don't) and I'd have to accept your use of the term 'platforming', which is a tool used to silence others.

BOOM!

 

[DTwnDawg]

Did you read the stories? Your ad hominem attack is both flawed & based on incorrect information...unless you already knew the course could be taught & intentionally misled, to make a point.

Same song different day

 

[atlanta cock#]

Read the post above and if you insist on commenting, you can comment on the pro-Nazi tweet from the guy Tucker claims is the best and most honest historian today.

You cited Corn in support of the point you were trying to make.

 

[willdup]

You cited Corn in support of the point you were trying to make.

I posted a tweet that featured the Cooper tweet about the invasion on France which I have now pointed out twice. Should I make it three just to ensure you and Moose understand the point?

Here you go. Maybe this will help. Focus on the tweet by martyrmade. The one where he states the Nazi invasion of France was far preferable to the opening ceremonies.

 

[Moosefish]

Should I make it three just to ensure you and Moose understand the point?

The point you're missing is the hypocrisy of spending an entire thread about a journalist interviewing someone, only to then quote a journalist that literally worked with a campaign to undermine an election *using Russia-influenced fiction, directly from the Kremlin*

The irony and lack of self-awareness is incredible, regardless of the content of his tweet.

 

[cherrydawg]

Moose, it’s not like you to flippantly dismiss a detailed and,if I may suggest, well-supported argument like that. Now you don’t care about the interview and the interviewer when you took the time to defend him in this same thread?

The current media environment is a mess, full of lies and propaganda that originate from both inside and outside our country. You are quite adroit at detailing it when it originates from the left, but now that I’ve detailed it from one of the most known and followed voices on the right my argument is weak and you don’t care?

It’s not an interview and I provided examples of why that is the case. “Best and most honest” is not the set up for an interview, it’s establishing a platform, which I suspect you know. Everything from Tucker in the interview that follows supports my argument.

Now, why is Tucker, who has been a relentless and consistent voice in support of Putin and Russia, platforming a Nazi apologist? Stay tuned, because I’m guessing we will eventually find out. It isn’t about journalism. Perhaps the indictments announced yesterday could be relevant. TBD.

Its not one of the most known and or followed voices LOL

 

[willdup]

The point you're missing is the hypocrisy of spending an entire thread about a journalist interviewing someone, only to then quote a journalist that literally worked with a campaign to undermine an election *using Russia-influenced fiction, directly from the Kremlin*

The irony and lack of self-awareness is incredible, regardless of the content of his tweet.

Ok, Moose.

It’s clear you are going to continue to avoid the topic that you raised, which was the defense of Tucker and his boosting of a Nazi apologists. I’m glad choosing a David Corn retweet as proof of the vile nature of the guy Tucker spent a few hours praising has given you an out from actually responding to the content. You did it slightly more elegantly than most on here, but it’s a tried and true response to attack the source when the content is inconvenient and challenges your argument. I offered up an alternative poster for the exact same content by obviously it’s time to move on.

We can all look forward to more great journalism from Tucker, Nazi apologist and the primary on-air personality responsible for the $780m defamation settlement for election lies. He’s definitely doing great work for someone out there. Maybe one day we will find out who and how much he got paid for it.

 

[cherrydawg]

Whats identity politics?

I wish I could put multiple laughs on this. You know exactly what it is since you are a dimocrat and that is all they have. Plus, you bring up race about everything. EVERYTHING. I feel sorry for your son. You are teaching him he should feel slighted and not as worthwhile as other people because of his race. I am truly sad for him. But you do you. OH btw, I was in elementary school in the 60's in GA and we studied such things as slavery, and important black people from history, like George Washington Carver etc. Your state and your country are way better than you give them credit for.

 

[cherrydawg]

Ok, Moose.

It’s clear you are going to continue to avoid the topic that you raised, which was the defense of Tucker and his boosting of a Nazi apologists. I’m glad choosing a David Corn retweet as proof of the vile nature of the guy Tucker spent a few hours praising has given you an out from actually responding to the content. You did it slightly more elegantly than most on here, but it’s a tried and true response to attack the source when the content is inconvenient and challenges your argument. I offered up an alternative poster for the exact same content by obviously it’s time to move on.

We can all look forward to more great journalism from Tucker, Nazi apologist and the primary on-air personality responsible for the $780m defamation settlement for election lies. He’s definitely doing great work for someone out there. Maybe one day we will find out who and how much he got paid for it.

Please tell us the names of the journalist you approve... i bet his name begins with Goebbels.

 

[Moosefish]

Ok, Moose.

It’s clear you are going to continue to avoid the topic that you raised, which was the defense of Tucker and his boosting of a Nazi apologists. I’m glad choosing a David Corn retweet as proof of the vile nature of the guy Tucker spent a few hours praising has given you an out from actually responding to the content. You did it slightly more elegantly than most on here, but it’s a tried and true response to attack the source when the content is inconvenient and challenges your argument. I offered up an alternative poster for the exact same content by obviously it’s time to move on.

We can all look forward to more great journalism from Tucker, Nazi apologist and the primary on-air personality responsible for the $780m defamation settlement for election lies. He’s definitely doing great work for someone out there. Maybe one day we will find out who and how much he got paid for it.

1. You brought up a Tucker interview in a Russian Influence thread

2. I brought up & still maintain that interviews (from even the most vile, horrible, or "wrong" individuals) are not only 'ok', but also valuable. I subscribe to the long-held classical liberal belief that the free exchange of ideas (even 'wrong' or 'bad ones') is a net valuable thing

3. In your continued attempt to explain how 'bad' Tucker's interview subject is (something I never disagreed with, for reasons I list above) you quoted David Corn

4. The same David Corn, the journalist that worked directly with the DNC/Clinton campaign to promote the Steele Dossier, which has direct ties to the Russian Government and was expressly created to interfere with the 2016 election

...that's why your use of David Corn floored me...in a Russian influence thread, without a hint of irony.

 

[willdup]

1. You brought up a Tucker interview in a Russian Influence thread

2. I brought up & still maintain that interviews (from even the most vile, horrible, or "wrong" individuals) are not only 'ok', but also valuable. I subscribe to the long-held classical liberal belief that the free exchange of ideas (even 'wrong' or 'bad ones') is a net valuable thing

3. In your continued attempt to explain how 'bad' Tucker's interview subject is (something I never disagreed with, for reasons I list above) you quoted David Corn

4. The same David Corn, the journalist that worked directly with the DNC/Clinton campaign to promote the Steele Dossier, which has direct ties to the Russian Government and was expressly created to interfere with the 2016 election

...that's why your use of David Corn floored me...in a Russian influence thread, without a hint of irony.

1 - yes, I did. The degree to which Tucker has been shilling for Russia is extreme. Tucker was a primary mouthpiece at Fox for the lies about election fraud all while he knew they were lies. Tucker conducted an interview of Putin that was far more propaganda than journalism and the rest of his trip could have been scripted by Putin’s communication office. Perhaps it was.

The ideas shared by this historian and promoted and validated by Tucker are extreme and serve the purpose of challenging the very foundations about what we know about the history of the last one hundred years. It’s extreme to such a degree it seems very intentional and with an agenda, just like the knowing lies about election fraud. Given that we now have very strong evidence that Russia has been spending tens of millions on illegal US propaganda, and Tucker has been perhaps their loudest mouthpiece here, it’s a highly relevant connection to point out.

2 - you just will not address the differences I keep detailing between an interview and abject promotion of destructive and easily disproven theories meant to whitewash the actions of a government that was responsible for 11-13 million deaths in camps or by execution and indirectly responsible for another 70-85 millions deaths as the primary protagonist of WW2 in Europe.

If some leftists “historian” was invited on to a leftist podcast to whitewash Stalin and explain why the tens of millions of people who were intentionally starved by him was actually the fault of the Nazis or western powers, and the interviewer validated and agreed with everything he said, I’d brand as the exact same thing. It’s not journalism, or history. It’s extremely easily challenged and disproven propaganda.

3 - the quote by David Corn was entirely incidental to the content of the tweet, which I’ve now said five times. It’s my mistake, as I simply grabbed the first tweet I could find that retreated the content I was focused on sharing and obviously lost the point entirely due to who retweeted it. Understood.

4 - understood, and I’ve obviously provided a suitable distraction from the point the content of the tweet was intended to make by not considering who was retweeting to content.

Regarding the rest of the Steele Dossier, Crossfire Hurricane and all matters covered by Special Prosecutor Durham, just a reminder that he got one plea agreement and failed in court with his two prosecutions.