Still confused on Jack Smith Washington Case.........

[Moosefish]

I'll say that Taibbi, Shellenberger and Gutentag's last bombshell project, the Twitter Files, didn't really deliver what was promised at the beginning. But I'll read what they have to say with an open mind.

Maybe, but nobody accused them of making anything up, either. Reporters can't (shouldn't) make more of a story than there is. If the Twitter Files weren't a bombshell...then that's because it simply wasn't a bombshell. If the sources here are legit (and we have no reason right now to think they're not) bombshell status is self-evident.

 

[willdup]

Anyway I just find it interesting that

One can use common sense/logic/connect the dots/intuition/where there is smoke there is fire.....whatever term or phrases we use to form an opinion that Trump and Russia Colluded together to win the election.

But that same logic does not get used in the Biden Family payout scheme. We have to see receipts of Joe's wrong doing there.

Publicly requesting that Russia "find" Dem emails, which Russia then delivered against and released in a manner highly beneficial to Trump, is not "smoke".

Don. Jr taking a meeting in Trump Tower about promised damaging information from the Russians on Clinton and saying, "if it's what they say it is, I love it, particularly in the late summer", is not "smoke".

Trump standing next to Putin at Helsinki and saying he believed Putin's denial of election interference over our own intelligence services, is not "smoke".

What benefit did Joe provide for all of the supposed bribes his son received? Don't say Burisma, as that story never held up to scrutiny and the key witness was just indicted for lying about the Biden's and Burisma.

What benefit did China receive for their supposed bribes? What policy was impacted in any way?

There remains no proof that Joe received money or altered a single policy. Can you see how that makes comparing the Trump and Biden situations different?

 

[Moosefish]

Don't say Burisma, as that story never held up to scrutiny and the key witness was just indicted for lying about the Biden's and Burisma.

'A' key witness, the one that gave the info about $5M. That's bad.

However (and as I've discussed/provided evidence for before) Shokin was officially viewed by and was told by the State Department as making sufficient progress in reducing Ukrainian corruption. He had hit all the milestones for Ukraine to receive promised aid and State Department officials were shocked with Biden's complete 180 on this subject (from Oct '15 until Dec '15). They literally said to each other in official communications that they had no idea where that came from. This is all backed up by official Congressional documents based on State Department records.

This flip was made by Biden and against all other official gov't recommendations. Literally NOBODY talked about or recommended Shokin be fired and no discussion about it occurs until AFTER Biden made his comments about withholding aid. Which just happens to have come after Burisma had hired Hunter and investigations into one of their oligarchs had started. I've linked THIS VERY LONG STORY before. It provides links to official government documents.

There remains no proof that Joe received money

This is incorrect. Funneled through dozens of shell companies he (and family members...which also counts under bribery law) received money from payment made to Hunter or his associates. Banks sent warnings about potential illegal activities on many of these accounts. It was often called a "loan" or "loan repayment" which has different reporting requirements than income.

 

[zingerdawg]

'A' key witness, the one that gave the info about $5M. That's bad.

However (and as I've discussed/provided evidence for before) Shokin was officially viewed by and was told by the State Department as making sufficient progress in reducing Ukrainian corruption. He had hit all the milestones for Ukraine to receive promised aid and State Department officials were shocked with Biden's complete 180 on this subject (from Oct '15 until Dec '15). They literally said to each other in official communications that they had no idea where that came from. This is all backed up by official Congressional documents based on State Department records.

This flip was made by Biden and against all other official gov't recommendations. Literally NOBODY talked about or recommended Shokin be fired and no discussion about it occurs until AFTER Biden made his comments about withholding aid. Which just happens to have come after Burisma had hired Hunter and investigations into one of their oligarchs had started. I've linked THIS VERY LONG STORY before. It provides links to official government documents.




This is incorrect. Funneled through dozens of shell companies he (and family members...which also counts under bribery law) received money from payment made to Hunter or his associates. Banks sent warnings about potential illegal activities on many of these accounts. It was often called a "loan" or "loan repayment" which has different reporting requirements than income.

There is also a precedent set there. He has been getting loans for his family members for years.

 

[Moosefish]

...Don't say Burisma, as that story never held up to scrutiny...

Additionally, HERE is another story that subverts the "Europe supported getting rid of Shokin, too" point you've brought up before.

The European Commission praised Ukraine’s Prosecutor-General Viktor Shokin for his efforts to fight corruption in a December 2015 progress report published nine days after then-VP Joe Biden demanded his ouster.

In fact, the Dec. 18, 2015, progress report, obtained by the New York Post, says that the European Union was satisfied that Ukraine had achieved “noteworthy” progress, including in “preventing and fighting corruption,” and thus was eligible for visa-free travel in Europe.

The European Commission noted that Shokin had just appointed the head of a specialized anti-corruption prosecution office, which it described as “an indispensable component of an effective and independent institutional framework for combating high-level corruption.”

“Based on these commitments, the anti-corruption benchmark is deemed to have been achieved,” the European Commission report found. “The progress noted in the fifth report on anti-corruption policies, particularly the legislative and institutional progress, has continued.”

At the same time, the EU commissioner for migration, home affairs and citizenship issued a public statement on Dec. 18, 2015, praising Shokin and other officials for making “enormous progress” on reform, according to a report by John Solomon from Just the News.

“I congratulate the Ukrainian leadership on the progress made towards completing the reform process which will bring important benefits to the citizens of Ukraine in the future,” then-EU Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos said. “The hard work towards achieving this significant goal has paid off. Now it is important to keep upholding all the standards.”

 

[Don Ellis]

Publicly requesting that Russia "find" Dem emails, which Russia then delivered against and released in a manner highly beneficial to Trump, is not "smoke".

Don. Jr taking a meeting in Trump Tower about promised damaging information from the Russians on Clinton and saying, "if it's what they say it is, I love it, particularly in the late summer", is not "smoke".

Trump standing next to Putin at Helsinki and saying he believed Putin's denial of election interference over our own intelligence services, is not "smoke".

What benefit did Joe provide for all of the supposed bribes his son received? Don't say Burisma, as that story never held up to scrutiny and the key witness was just indicted for lying about the Biden's and Burisma.

What benefit did China receive for their supposed bribes? What policy was impacted in any way?

There remains no proof that Joe received money or altered a single policy. Can you see how that makes comparing the Trump and Biden situations different?

It wasn't a request.....he said he HOPED. Word play is fair game

By this response, I take it you are a true believer in Trump/Russian colluding together to win the election even though investigation states there was no evidence. It is what it states.

There remains NO PROOF that Trump/Russia colluded according to the investigation

 

[atlanta cock#]

Publicly requesting that Russia "find" Dem emails, which Russia then delivered against and released in a manner highly beneficial to Trump, is not "smoke".

Don. Jr taking a meeting in Trump Tower about promised damaging information from the Russians on Clinton and saying, "if it's what they say it is, I love it, particularly in the late summer", is not "smoke".

Trump standing next to Putin at Helsinki and saying he believed Putin's denial of election interference over our own intelligence services, is not "smoke".

What benefit did Joe provide for all of the supposed bribes his son received? Don't say Burisma, as that story never held up to scrutiny and the key witness was just indicted for lying about the Biden's and Burisma.

What benefit did China receive for their supposed bribes? What policy was impacted in any way?

There remains no proof that Joe received money or altered a single policy. Can you see how that makes comparing the Trump and Biden situations different?

Will, I'm curious what you and @nice marmot think about this. Taibbi is as left as there is but he's still a real journalist.

Note by Matt Taibbi on Substack

WMD, Part II: CIA "Cooked The Intelligence" To Hide That Russia Favored Clinton, Not Trump In 2016 Russia didn't fear Hillary Clinton. “It was a relationship they were comfortable with,” some CIA analysts believed, but intelligence was suppressed. On the fall of the last great Russiagate myth

substack.com

 

[willdup]

It wasn't a request.....he said he HOPED. Word play is fair game

By this response, I take it you are a true believer in Trump/Russian colluding together to win the election even though investigation states there was no evidence. It is what it states.

There remains NO PROOF that Trump/Russia colluded according to the investigation

No, I actually believe the findings of Mueller, our various security agencies and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Trump and his campaign requested help from one of our two primary global adversaries, they were aware of at least some of those efforts that Russia undertook for their benefit and they welcomed those efforts.

Trump also publicly supported Putin’s denial of interference when he almost certainly knew Putin was lying.

Trump and his campaign did not actively participate in or facilitate the criminal activities that Russia undertook in furtherance of the efforts listed above, which means that Trump and team were not guilty of criminal collusion.

The fact that the GOP is perfectly fine with the accepted facts regarding Trump and Russia, regardless of Trump’s criminal liability, is an indictment of the entire party.

 

[DawgWCK]

No, I actually believe the findings of Mueller, our various security agencies and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Trump and his campaign requested help from one of our two primary global adversaries, they were aware of at least some of those efforts that Russia undertook for their benefit and they welcomed those efforts.

Trump also publicly supported Putin’s denial of interference when he almost certainly knew Putin was lying.

Trump and his campaign did not actively participate in or facilitate the criminal activities that Russia undertook in furtherance of the efforts listed above, which means that Trump and team were not guilty of criminal collusion.

The fact that the GOP is perfectly fine with the accepted facts regarding Trump and Russia, regardless of Trump’s criminal liability, is an indictment of the entire party.

Trump looked silly publically asking for Russian help and having family members meet with Russian contacts looking for dirt. Obama and his administration look awful trying to use covert intelligence to monitor Trump and his campaign. Same bunch covered for Biden and his laptop. Really sad state of affairs….

 

[zingerdawg]

Trump looked silly publically asking for Russian help and having family members meet with Russian contacts looking for dirt. Obama and his administration look awful trying to use covert intelligence to monitor Trump and his campaign. Same bunch covered for Biden and his laptop. Really sad state of affairs….

It is funny in some ways. They really thought they had him. So much so they doubled down. Tried to bribe people. They could believe all these contacts ended up talking about was their kid’s soccer games. How can you not laugh a little at that.

 

[Athens is Heaven]

Note: We only believe Putin/Russia when it benefits our collective political beliefs. What we don't do is acknowledge that all Putin really wants is collective chaos in the US elective system (an actual non-politically biased IC finding about Russian activities in '16 & beyond)

Seems like the Democrats want the same thing.

 

[willdup]

Trump looked silly publically asking for Russian help and having family members meet with Russian contacts looking for dirt. Obama and his administration look awful trying to use covert intelligence to monitor Trump and his campaign. Same bunch covered for Biden and his laptop. Really sad state of affairs….

Is it a reasonable question to ask, which came first? Weve never had a presidential candidate openly request help from a foreign adversary, right? Weve never had a candidate, as far as we know, with a campaign manager with the extensive professional and financial relationships with foreign agents. I mean, Manafort was deemed a "grave counterintelligence risk."

Perhaps if not for the very concerning engagement with Russia, Trump would not have been investigated regarding his very concerning engagement with Russia?

 

[DTwnDawg]

Putin says Russia prefers Biden to Trump but criticizes current US policy

President Vladimir Putin said that Russia would prefer to see U.S. President Joe Biden win a second term, describing him as more experienced and predictable than Donald Trump.

apnews.com

 

[willdup]

@willdup

Here's the issue w/ anything you link on this issue: If the new report that I linked previously is to be believed (and subsequent parts of the story have been released), then any reporting on this issue in the past 7 years is based on poisoned fruit.

HERE is the newest part of their investigation/story.

Per the story above, there was disagreement and a lack of consensus on the conclusion that John Brennan wanted to be factual: that Russia wanted Trump to win. The intelligence community (led by Brenan) wanted to get Trump, but that did not align with the intel that the Kremlin wanted Hillary Clinton to win, because they viewed her potential presidency as more manageable.

So, Brennan decided to handpick his analysts to compartmentalize selective intelligence to back his Trump-Russia bias, thereby cooking the intelligence and ironically doing the work of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in marginalizing the work of the State Department and the Defense Intelligence Agency who did not support the CIA’s main Trump/Russia conclusion.

I'll save you from having to sign up for a free trial or subscribing, a few highlights:















Again, these are respected journalists, not known for right-wing conspiracy theories.

So I’ve read everything that you shared. What I don’t see is any effort to refute the widely agreed upon activities that were undertaken to benefit Trump and hurt Clinton. The email hack and release specifically can only be interpreted as an effort to help Trump and hurt Clinton.

So there was a lack of consensus regarding Russia’s intent, but the detailing of those efforts that have been confirmed by multiple agencies, clearly were designed to benefit Trump. So those pointing at Russia in 2016 were subsequently validated, right?

What am I missing?