OK, a person from a foreign country alerts us that another country is potentially doing bad shit to us. Why would we view this as some sort of “interference” in the same way that the Russians were fucking with our elections? It’s not incongruous at all, whether it “seems” that way to you or you “find” it to be so. One is providing information to our intelligence community, the other is providing misinformation (possibly among other things) to our electorate. One is a veteran Russian expert from a trusted intelligence agency of one of our oldest allies, the other comes from a nation that is currently and historically hostile to American interests. For fuck’s sake, you don’t see a difference here? You don’t understand why one is welcomed by many people in this country while the other isn’t?
We’ve always welcomed intelligence from foreign allies to stop bad things from happening to us. And we’ve always been against foreign nations doing bad things to us-- well, modern-day Republicans notwithstanding.
The notion that one is providing “information” and the other “misinformation” is your own preferred view, and in line with my earlier comment. But it does not have any factual basis. Even the “veteran Russian expert” himself says he does not vouch for the accuracy of anything in these reports.
On one hand: There was coordinated Russian meddling in our presidential election. On the other hand: A highly-respected retired intelligence officer from the UK handed over intelligence he had acquired to the FBI. But, yeah, same thing. :rolleyes: Moron.
From your perspectives, it all makes sense. No doubt about that.
Difference is: Your perspective is that a potential attack on our country by Russia is the same as a retired MI6 officer handing over intelligence to our intelligence community.
So Steele goes to the FBI and says “Chaps, here’s a bunch of things that I’ve found in Russia that point to them fucking with the election. You may want to look into this? I can’t strictly say it’s true, but it’s troubling and worth a peek or two. Pip, pip, cherry-o!” (To which the FBI said essentially “yea, we know, this tracks with this other dude who called us and told us a bunch of the same things we’re already looking into”)
In other words - providing a confidential tip to the proper law-enforcement agency to investigate further?
VS
Russia, who blatantly put things out on the Facebooks and the Twitters that told upright lies and misinformation directly to the public, while also providing opposition research and other goodies directly to a campaign saying essentially “Da, this vill help elect Donald Trump … in exchange you need drop sanctions, da?”
In other words, directly interfering in the campaign and providing aid to one of its parties in exchange for favors? (There’s a word for that … it’s on the tip of my tongue…)
<sarcasm>
Yes, obviously both of those things are the same.
</sarcasm>
You’re just blinded by your bias. And facts. Blinded by your bias and facts. And intelligence. Yes, blinded by your bias, facts, and intelligence. And experience actually living in the real world.
There are any number of factual misstatements in the Celidin’s post. Including:
[ul]
[li]Steele also went to several media outlets promoting the same narrative (this is the focus of the Grassley request for an investigation - needless to say this too has outraged the partisans here).[/li][li]It’s unclear why the FBI took interest in Steele’s dossier. The assertion that it was backed by other evidence is based on the word of the Fusion guy, who just might have his own interests in hand (do ya think?) The fact that a Russia expert working for Fusion at the time was married to a key DOJ employee might also have had to do with it, for example.[/li][li]The “in exchange” part of that post has no factual basis.[/li][/ul]
This type of mentality is unfortunately prevalent, however. Anything goes!
Now, at long last, you are on solid ground! I think there is no doubt…none, whatsoever!…that Mr Herman had no involvement, at any time, with Russian intervention in our elections! Good catch, FP!
[ul]
[li]Steele went to two media outlets, not several. He gave it to Mother Jones and Buzz Feed. He did this after he formed an erroneous belief that the FBI was not taking his information seriously, not realizing that they had opened an investigation several months prior to him offering the results of his investigation, because the FBI did not share the fact of their investigation with him. [/li]
[li]The “word of the Fusion guy,” whose name, incidentally, is Glenn Simpson, had nothing to do with why the FBI took Steele’s information seriously. Your towering intellect appears to lead you to believe that a marriage between a Fusion GPS employee and a “key DOJ employee” would somehow have influence on an investigation being conducted by the FBI that was so secret, Steele’s dossier didn’t make its way to the people conducting said investigation for several weeks – because internally, no one knew about that investigation. You’ll have to explain that how the DOJ employee connection to a Fusion GPS employee fits in. (Hint: It doesn’t.)[/li]
[li]Based on their own investigation, this is why the FBI took the Steele dossier seriously. They already knew what it contained was factually true. As much as you keep trying to dance around this fact, this is all that matters about the Steele dossier. Just repeating the words, “unsubstantiated gossip,” like a mantra, does nothing to change this.[/li]
[li]The “in exchange” part of Celedin’s post can easily be inferred by reasonable people looking at the facts, based on Michael Flynn’s phone calls (a fact) to Russian Ambassador Kislyak on December 28th and 29th about sanctions, as confirmed by K. C. McFarland, whom Flynn told about the calls. McFarland forwarded the information to 6 other Trump advisers in an email.[/li]
[li]It can be further inferred by legislation passed in July 2017 by both houses of Congress with an overwhelming veto-proof majority to limit Trump’s ability to unilaterally lift sanctions against Russia (a fact).[/li][/ul]
You know what else has a factual basis? The Steele dossier. Which the FBI knew even before Steele contacted them. That, too, is a fact. You should acquaint yourself with all of them.
Hahaha, look at Baghdad Barmy spin. If I didn’t think it would send him off on a rant on the presumption of collusion, I’d compare him favorably to Natalia Kanounnikova.