More detailed information about the case.
This link seems to have a bunch of random accusations an suspicious links:
I’ll have to go through it and check how many seem plausible.
I answered at the top of the page. It is not hard to determine what Rice asked Mr. Daniel to stand down from, which you’ll note that none of your links bother to mention.
Nice strawman, but almost no none believes they screwed with the vote tally. What they did was screw with voter registration data. What they did was steal DNC analytics and apparently give them to the Trump campaign.
Well, considering Trump’s guiding mission as president is to do the opposite of everything Obama did, I wholeheartedly welcome Trump’s upcoming order for his chief cyber security person to use the full force the the U.S. government to stop future Russian hack attempts on our elections, including the 2018 and 2020 elections which his CIA director says are at-risk of being hacked.
So, all you are saying is “Give peace a chance!”?
Ten bucks on the phrase most often found in Russian clipboards: “the elites desperately want a war with Putin.” Who wants odds?
House GOP refuses to renew election security funding as Democrats fume over Russian meddling
https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/House-GOP-refuses-to-renew-election-security-13086636.php
Well, that and “cyber attacks? every country does that.” That one, I’d guess, they have tattooed on their foreheads. (Until you’ve seen mirror-image Cyrillic, you haven’t lived!)
The ‘elites want war with Putin’ message-initiative is fairly recent–as recent as this week, I think, or at least its widespread use is. And of course it’s intended to solve the massive problem Trump created by being so visibly cowed and submissive toward Putin at Helsinki.
That’s an obvious problem for Trump: his followers prioritize Strong Bullies and have contempt for grovelers. They are trying to make excuses, for him, but this has shaken his base as nothing else has.
And weakening support for Trump is an obvious problem for Putin, too: though he may personally enjoy having the whole world acclaim him as master of the fawning American president, he does need that president to have enough status to be able to pull off an end to sanctions, the pull-out of American troops from Europe, etc. etc.
So the problem needs fixing.
And the best they’ve been able to do is this idea that “Trump had to look subservient to Putin because if he hadn’t it would have meant NUCLEAR WAR. So Trump only did that to prevent NUCLEAR WAR.”
This “explanation” is as pathetically weak as Trump showed himself to be, of course. But it’s the best they’ve been able to come up with.
So in the coming days, expect to see a lot of ‘what do you want, war with Russia? Trump has saved us from that inevitable development! Be grateful to Trump for the clever way he pretended to kowtow to Putin–he’s saved us!’ and similarly risible constructions.
This was shocking–the House Republicans were willing to, basically, admit that they DO want Russia to interfere in the upcoming elections.
This article has a clip of the ensuing “USA, USA, USA!” chant the Democrats took up in response (video is about half-way down the page):
I find it hilariously appropriate that Silver lining is posting cites from something called www.hotair.com.
That would assume that the Russians want Republicans to win. Putin wants to destabilise the US, and what better way to do that than to support Trump’s opposition in Congress. It just shows how clueless Republicans can be regarding the motives of the Kremlin.
I’m not really sure which side they would support in this election, honestly. If the Democrats win, then it causes havoc in the government and paralyzes it. If the Republicans win, then they’ll keep empowering Trump do Putin’s bidding. Russia is slightly better off with Republicans, but not by a significant amount, in any practical sense.
I suspect that they’ll target moderates on both sides. That’s probably more useful than trying to target a certain party. Fill Congress with nutters.
That vote was dependent not on what the Russians actually will do, but on what the Republicans think they will do.
If, in the event, the Russians double-cross their eager ‘allies,’ then it’s just too bad that the Republicans voted that way. But at this point, the Republicans are confident that shenanigans with the voting system will work in their own favor.
Bernie Sanders’ chief strategist for the campaign, Tad Devine, and Manafort were emailing about Ukraine, including a trip. Email contents unknown (to us), only titles.
12 2011.09.20 Email Chain D. Rabin, J. Mulvey, P. Manafort, R. Gates, K. Kilimnik, T. Devine, et al re Ukraine - First Draft
13 2012.04 Email Chain T. Devine, R. Gates, P. Manafort, et al re Ukraine
14 2012.08.06 Email T. Devine to P. Manafort re Memo
15 2014.03.31 Email T. Devine to R. Gates, et al re Call - Important
16 2014.03.31 Email T. Devine to R. Gates, et al re Draft Proposal
17 2014.06.09 Email T. Devine to R. Gates, et al re Kyiv
18 2014.06.14 Email T. Devine to K. Kilimnik, R. Gates, et al re Ukraine Trip
ETA: This is before he started to work with Sanders. Apparently, he had worked for Yanukovitch along with Manafort.
Considering the Yahoo article alone details exactly WHY Obama didn’t take aggressive measures against Russia, I’d say silver lining is tilting at windmills, yet again.
So, it would be interesting to know why Sanders decided to work with Devine. There must have been a reason.
Initial wiretap request against Carter Page:
Supposedly, there’s some 400 pages of further material, but I don’t know that I’ll go through that.
This document makes it absolutely clear that Christopher Steele was a paid source working for a partisan boss. It’s not a matter of footnotes, there’s a whole discussion of the topic in the main body of the text.
More interesting to me is the initial mention of Papadop, who appears in the very first sentence and then disappears after that. GIven that > 50% of the document is redacted, one has a reasonable suspicion that Pappy might have been working with the FBI previous to 2017 and whatever perjury offense it is that he committed was well into his work for them. The redacted materials plausibly detail the information that he was feeding to them, but because it wasn’t pursuant to the question of whether the FBI revealed that Steele’s credibility was imperfect, they kept that all redacted.
The above is completely irrelevant…was the information in the dossier accurate? Of COURSE he was a paid source…that was his goddamn job! Nobody has ever tried to claim that Steele was some simon-pure innocent who just happened to be an expert at ferreting things out and stumbled across all of this stuff. He was a private investigator with deep connections to British intelligence, which was his value to his CLIENTS.
That doesn’t speak to the dossier’s accuracy, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not the dossier was what the original FBI investigation was based on (protip: It was not.).
Of course, I admit my partisanship. I want this entire administration and anyone who’s ever worked with them (and the Congressional GOP contingent) up against a wall for the Russia treason. If that’s cause for people to doubt when I post accurate data, that’s their problem.
It does mention the accuracy, stating that he is known to have provided good intelligence before and to have proven himself on previous cases.
And, of course, he’s just one of a variety of sources - though we don’t know what all else, given the quantity of redacted information.