July 11, 2017

"Mr. Goldstone’s message, as described to The New York Times by the three people, indicates that the Russian government was the source of the potentially damaging information."

How excited am I supposed to be about this? There's a man named Rob Goldstone. He's "a publicist and former British tabloid reporter," and he sent an email to Donald Trump Jr., "according to three people with knowledge of the email."

We don't get a text of the email, but 3 people knowledge of an email. How does the NYT know they have knowledge? Instead of a quote from the email, we're only told what it "indicates." I'm supposed to accept an inference about the text that I can't see, an inference presented by the NYT, which I have seen trying to keep the Russia-did-it story alive.  

How does the email "indicate[] that the Russian government was the source of the potentially damaging information"? Vaguely, explicitly, in a manner that a reader can only understand with additional information?

Are we deprived of the text of the email because the NYT doesn't have the text? I have to guess that it does not. If not, is it because the "three people" were themselves paraphrasing and making representation about what the text "indicates"? Since the NYT (and presumably the "three people") are — I think — motivated to destroy Trump, I don't trust their paraphrasings. The word "indicates" seems chosen to insulate the NYT from accusations of distortion or exaggeration if the text materializes.

But I assume there is an email that Don Jr. got from Goldstone, because Don Jr's lawyer, Alan Futerfas, said "Goldstone contacted Don Jr. in an email and suggested that people had information concerning alleged wrongdoing by Democratic Party front-runner, Hillary Clinton, in her dealings with Russia."

If I read the linked article correctly, Futerfas said Don Jr. got the email trying to set up a meeting about HC's dealings with Russia, and then the NYT came up with the 3 people with knowledge of an indication that Goldstone's email notified Don Jr. that the info about HC came from the Russian government and even — to quote the first paragraph at the NYT — "was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy."

That must mean that Don Jr. has the email, and he ought to be able to produce the text. The NYT knew that when it wrote about what the email "indicates." So I'd like to see Don Jr. produce the text. That would answer all these questions.

ADDED: The bottom half of the NYT article gets the story from Goldstone, who says that Emin Agalarov (a Russian pop star and son of a man who worked with Don Jr's father to bring the Miss Universe pageant to Russia) asked him to set up a meeting between Don Jr. and Natalia Veselnitskaya. Veselnitskaya was said to have "information about illegal campaign contributions to the D.N.C." according to Goldstone, who says he "never, never ever" knew Veselnitskaya had any connection to the Russian government.

Goldstone said Veselnitskaya only had “just a vague, generic statement about the campaign’s funding and how people, including Russian people, living all over the world donate when they shouldn’t donate... It was the most inane nonsense I’ve ever heard... And I was actually feeling agitated by it. Had I, you know, actually taken up what is a huge amount of their busy time with this nonsense?”

I don't know if Goldstone accurately portrays what Veselnitskaya said, but I'm wondering how that story connects to the central question of the extent to which the Russian government was actually involved in the American election. If Veselnitskaya were acting for the Russian government and the Russian government were really trying to swing the election to Trump, why didn't she have something substantial to deliver?

AND: Veselnitskaya speaks: "I never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that."

UPDATE: A new piece at the NYT offers some of the actual text:
The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

343 comments:

1 – 200 of 343   Newer›   Newest»
Mattman26 said...

"Dear Junior, we here at the Russian government want to help your dad beat Hillary, and we have some juicy info to share. Can we meet?"

I bet that's what it doesn't say.

Dave from Minnesota said...

It would be interesting to hear the first 10 seconds of every top-of-the-hour radio newscast (say like CBS) for the past 6 months. I am thinking everyone has the words "Russia" and "Trump" in the first sentence.
The whole point is to keep this up until they can get something. Most likely it will be a Scooter Libby thing where there isn't any crime committed, but they'll get one of their targets to say something contradictory and get him on that.

Once written, twice... said...

If this was Chelsea setting up this meeting with her mom's campaign manager in tow Ann and her Althouse Hillbillies would be going ballistic.

Darrell said...

Russia should release the tapes of Hillary soliciting the millions of dollars of payments to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for a percentage of our uranium reserves. You know they would capture that for future use. It would give them more flexibility after an election, say. . .

Once written, twice... said...

Cruel neutrality my Ass Ann.

Dave from Minnesota said...

Once written.....I'd probably mock her instead of coming up with goofy-ass conspiracy theories. And to your point....now I know who silly conservatives looked when they kept saying the word "Benghazi" non-stop, thinking that was the way to go after Hillary.

rehajm said...

How excited am I supposed to be about this?

NYT wants you to wet your pants then run and tell your congresspeople to stop thinking about a healthcare bill immediately until we get to the bottom of all this. Which will take the remainder of Trump's term or until the House or Senate turns D, whichever comes first.

While drifting off to sleep NYT dreams about you getting so worked up over this you will Hillary into the presidency with your mind.

Xmas said...

Meanwhile, both Goldstone and the Russian lawyer, Miss Veselnitskaya, are on record claiming there was nothing mentioned about the Russian government when they set up the meeting. And the lawyer is on record stating she doesn't work for the Russian government and had no previous relationship with Manafort or didn't recognize him at the time of the meeting.

Sample Commenter said...

“It is quite possible that maybe they were longing for such an information. They wanted it so badly that they could only hear the thought that they wanted.” -Russian Lawyer Lady in Question.

/********************/

Goldstone contacted Don Jr. in an email and suggested that people had information concerning alleged wrongdoing by Democratic Party front-runner, Hillary Clinton, in her dealings with Russia."

I am sure, given what we already knew about Hillary and the Russians, that Russia was awash with such information. It would be interesting to get more detail on stories like how Hillary approved a deal that gave Russia control of so much North American uranium, or what Russia gave her in return for "killing" Keystone.

This phrase in no way indicates that this came from the Russian government, but was, more likely, dirt ABOUT the Russian government, which was in bed with HRH HRC, whom they found to be tractable, as long as the filthy lucre flowed.

Xmas said...

That last 'or' is an 'and'

Laslo Spatula said...

I don't use Twitter, so I'll just say it here:

Hashtag Russia Fatigue.

I am Laslo.

Darrell said...

I arranged for China to set up a plaque on the moon that says Hillary Clinton Will Never Be President Of The United States when they visit. I'll sleep better knowing that it's there.

Mike Sylwester said...

according to three people with knowledge of the email.

Some of my guesses:

James Comey

James Clapper

John Brennan

Salley Yates

Robert Mueller

Amadeus 48 said...

Hmmm...I just don't see a problem with a campaign looking for dirt on the other candidate. God knows Team Obama did it. This is one of the great non-stories of all time.

"Politics ain't beanbag," as Mr. Dooley said.

Dave from Minnesota said...

During the campaign, Donald Trump Jr. was frequently dispatched to gun-loving and flag-waving areas in red states, while Ivanka was sent to woo suburbanites.

Story right now from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. DT Jr went to see those gun-tot'n Bible Lov'n country bumpkins.

AJ Lynch said...

Or as even Fox News' Bret Baier says every night in at least one of his segments "Russia Russia Russia" and then follows up with nothing but innuendo but no evidence.

Sample Commenter said...

If this was Chelsea setting up this meeting with her mom's campaign manager in tow Ann and her Althouse Hillbillies would be going ballistic.

Said the guy who didn't give a shit about the amount of cash Hillary's campaign slush fund was getting from the Russians.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

David Begley said...

The thing is that CNN and MSNBC run the story as if the NYT has the actual email and it is the gospel truth. This is how fake news works.

Darrell said...

Was the email on one of Hillary's servers that she wiped?

Amadeus 48 said...

My guess of the three aides with knowledge: Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, and James Comey.

Darrell said...

Robert Mook, John Podesta, and Hillary Clinton--since they arranged the trolling of Junior.

chickelit said...

Once written, twice... said...
If this was Chelsea setting up this meeting with her mom's campaign manager in tow Ann and her Althouse Hillbillies would be going ballistic.

Instead you are the one looking more and more like North Korea. Isolated. Alone. Going ballistic.

Dave from Minnesota said...

I don't use Twitter, so I'll just say it here:
Hashtag Russia Fatigue.
I am Laslo.


See my post above...when ever hourly news brief for the past few months starts out with "Russia" and "Trump".....I doubt anyone except hardcore Trump haters are paying any attention. Its like white noise.

Sample Commenter said...

BTW, use of a racist term like Hillbillies says more about you than us. We think your lack of a sense of irony is funny. We laugh every time you do it. I can say this because I know you are deaf to it. I will give you a clue, my avatar is Junior Samples as he appeared on the Hillbilly version of Saturday Night Live, that would be Hee Haw.

So you can see that calling me a Hillbilly cuts me to the quick.

Darrell said...

The NYT doesn't even know which came first--Comey's chcickenshit memo or Trump's eggcellent Tweet.

Quayle said...

Is Don Jr. required to trust Mr. Goldstein at his word written in the email. Is it automatic that if Mr. Goldstein said the information is from the Russians that Don cannot doubt or disbelieve it is from the Russians?

Or is Don allowed to say to himself, “Hum, let’s see what he’s got and then see what we think.”

I get emails from people saying all sorts of things. Do I immediately believe them? Is it inescapable that I must have believed them to be true?

Do I immediately believe that it must be so, because a sender tells me he is a Nyrobian prince in exile and needs my help getting $10M out of a bank in Zurich?

Holy cow, three guys saw an email written by some other guy, and they described what is said.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

While drifting off to sleep NYT dreams about you getting so worked up over this you will Hillary into the presidency with your mind.

The New York Times thinks I should be OMG over this but I'm totally whatevs."

Anybody who has been paying any attention at all knows that it simply makes no sense for the Russians to prefer Trump to Hillary. Hillary is the one who was taking money from Russia in exchange for "favors." In addition, anyone watching her career knows she's feckless and incompetent. Her first and only instinct in any situation is to calculate its political benefit to her. All other considerations are non-existent.

exhelodrvr1 said...

So the NYT is now colluding with the Russians?

Sample Commenter said...

They have a flush damn it! And they will turn over that fifth card soon!

Ralph L said...

The obvious question the NYT and MSM avoids:

Why would Putin want to help elect Trump?

Energy prices?
Eastern Europe?
Syria?

Darrell said...

This woman has absolute proof--And she speaks for all Althouse Billhillies--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14_kKegbSXc


chickelit said...

As Darrel astutely pointed out the other night, keeping the Russia story alive is crucial for Dems. If the narrative goes, a whole lot of shady activities like spying on Trump by Obama become actionable crimes. Expect the Times and the Dems to expend everything they have now to bring down Trump. They sense they are getting closer because just like the 2016 election, they misread America.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

By the way, I would like to remind everyone that Obama was illegally accepting campaign donations from foreign donors by accepting donations via credit card and turning off the functionality that would have verified the location of the donor.

Sample Commenter said...

"Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country" I think John McCain said, in one of his lucid moments. Why they wouldn't want anti-fossil fuel Hillary who killed Keystone for them over Trump, who is of the "Drill, Baby, drill!" school of US energy policy is on of those mysteries that Democrats don't worry their pretty little heads over, I guess.

Tommy Duncan said...

Blogger David Begley said...

"The thing is that CNN and MSNBC run the story as if the NYT has the actual email and it is the gospel truth. This is how fake news works."

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” -Mark Twain

traditionalguy said...

The first job of for Police Task Force investigating a crime is to set up a Hot line for tips. The second job is to follow up each tip with an interview. The third job is to rule out the nonsense tips.

And that appears to be what Jr did in June, 2016 as he investigated the funding of the Criminal Organizations run by Soros, Obama and Clinton.

One more time, the EnemyMedia are jealous over someone doing their job for them.

Laslo Spatula said...

"Geschmacksache," sagt der Affe und beißt in die Seife.

I am Laslo.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Why they wouldn't want anti-fossil fuel Hillary who killed Keystone for them over Trump, who is of the "Drill, Baby, drill!" school of US energy policy is on of those mysteries that Democrats don't worry their pretty little heads over, I guess.

The very fact that Trump pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accord and is working on supplying Poland with fuel is proof that Trump is not colluding with the Russians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Russian_War_of_1792

http://home.golden.net/~medals/1918-1921war.html

http://www.historynet.com/polish-soviet-war-battle-of-warsaw.htm

Fabi said...

Did you ever hear the story of the little boy who cried Russia?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

I forced myself the listen to NPR yesterday. The way they "report" anything to do with Trump or Trump jr. is that every word and deed, phone call, e-mail or meeting is suspect and criminal.

A conversation about the Miss Universe Pageant with a Russian? - why that's criminal.

Sample Commenter said...

This is for Once

I voted for Hillary Clinton, and I haven't given up on her yet!

You have to wait for about 2:00 to get to her Hillary support.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

NPR still using Trump's joke about Putin finding Hillary's 30,000 missing e-mails - NPR talks about that as if it's a smoking gun.

Darrell said...

"A matter of taste" says the monkey and bites into soap."

Sample Commenter said...

Cruel neutrality my Ass Ann

I thought Once Written was some kind of intellectual. You have an open forum here in the comments to demonstrate why she is wrong.

TosaGuy said...

For those who are hyperventilating about the Russian threat, you could have prevented it by voting for Mitt Romney in 2012....but you were probably all snickering at the supposedly sick burn of "the 80s wants its foreign policy back".

Johnathan Birks said...

God bless you perfesser - you read NYT so we don't have to,

Sample Commenter said...

NPR still using Trump's joke about Putin finding Hillary's 30,000 missing e-mails

You mean those 30K government records that she illegally destroyed?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

So I'd like to see Don Jr. produce the text. That would answer all these questions.

I'd like to see Don Jr. tell the NYT and everyone else to pound sand.

Truthavenger said...

Althouse needs a new tag: "Throwing mud, hoping something sticks."


Ron Winkleheimer said...

I forced myself the listen to NPR yesterday.

I used to be able to tolerate them if nothing else was on the radio and I was in the car, but I cannot any longer.

I read somewhere that NPR was not drawing younger listeners. I joked to my wife that that was inconceivable! Surely young people are craving shows featuring word games and reruns of guys diagnosing car problems over the phone?

Darrell said...

You mean those 30K government records that she illegally destroyed?

Yeah, she did it deliberately, but she didn't have intent to do wrong--according to Comey. Or something.

tcrosse said...

Isn't it just as possible that the Russians are colluding with the last-ditch Clintonites and Never-Trumpers to bring down the duly-elected President ? Of course, even they know that none of this will ever make Hillary president.

Unknown said...

NPR this a.m. says the REALLY BIG STORY is that although there was no collusion (because the Russian lawyer didn't have any information that would have affected the election), Trump's people were WILLING TO COLLUDE if there had actually been any information that could have affected the results of the election.

Sounds like a Laslo or Onion byline, but honest, that's the story on NPR.

Not making that up. I don't have that much imagination. It does kind of spark a wild thought though; Hillary using a government office to shake down companies, Bill and interns, renting out White House bedrooms, stealing White House silverware... nah, too out there.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Probably all these Russian leaks are coming from Andrea (who knows things)

Irrefutable proof!!!!!

Chuck said...

So I'd like to see Don Jr. produce the text. That would answer all these questions.

Me too!

I am really comfortable, just taking a deep breath and waiting out all of these Russian stories. Nothing that the media is reporting now makes much difference. If the media is going overboard now, and if it turns out that the Special Counsel turns up nothing of consequence, then I will be glad that I didn't waste my time.

And if the Special Counsel is quietly building a potent criminal case against several members of the Trump Administration and even Trump himself, all of the current gossip will be blown away by those events.

I am certainly glad that there is a Special Counsel; and I'm glad that it is Mueller. I'll wait for him.

In the meantime, the nation faces a cataclysmic decision point on health care. With basically zero leadership (after a whole campaign of promises) from Trump.

I think Trump supporters love the Russia story as much or more than Joe and Mika do.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

If the road takes you to Hillary's corruption - the media lose interest.

If the road takes you to an inference that Trump and Russian colluded! - the media will twerk the story to read that way.

Mike Sylwester said...

Mr. Goldstone represents the Russian pop star Emin Agalarov, whose father was President Trump’s business partner in bringing the Miss Universe pageant to Moscow in 2013.

Paul Manafort smuggled money out of Ukraine for top officials in the Ukrainian Government. That's what Manafort was hired to do. It's absurd to think that he really was hired to advise Ukrainian politicians how to conduct an election campaign in Ukraine.

Viktor Yanukovych was elected as President in an election in 2009. The election was fair, according to the consensus of international observers. Yanukovych won because much of the electorate in Ukraine is pro-Russian, and he ran on a pro-Russian platform.

Before that, Yanukovych won the presidential election in 2004. That election took place October 31, and a run-off election took place on November 21. Yanukovych won the run-off election and took office.

Because of accusations of vote-rigging, the election was done again on December 26, 2004. This time Yanukovych lost. Yanukovych hired Manafort in December 2004.

Manafort prepares for the possibility that Yanukovych might be removed from office and will lose his wealth and freedom. (This is my opinion.) That's what Manafort did for Yanukovych in 2004-2005 and 2009-2010.

Manafort knows various methods of smuggling money and other assets out of Ukraine.

Probably one good smuggling route is the Miss Universe contest. It is an unusual, international business with lots of places to pad budgets. Lots of people are paid lots of money. Lots of people travel in and out of the country. Lots of expensive stuff is purchased abroad.

------

Although Yanukovych won the 2009 election fairly, Ukrainian activists made continual trouble in Kiev to make his governance impossible. This trouble-making was encouraged, guided and supported by the Obama Administration.

That's why Yanukovych thought that he might be removed from office again and why he needed Manafort's help again.

Indeed, Yanukovych was removed from office in 2014 -- essentially because the continual trouble-making on the streets of Kiev made his governance impossible.

Manafort's work in Ukraine ended in late 2015. Manafort joined Donald Trump's campaign staff in March 2016 and rose to campaign manager in June 2016.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

"Goldstone contacted Don Jr. in an email and suggested that people had information concerning alleged wrongdoing by Democratic Party front-runner, Hillary Clinton, in her dealings with Russia."

What? no way!

Hagar said...

Perhaps the Russian lawyer lady and Don Jr. both were lured to this meeting with bait calculated to appeal to each and thus the conflicting stories about the purpose of the meeting?

Owen said...

DBQ: "...pound sand." This!

Sample Commenter said...

These emails were from the same time that she received tens of millions of dollars from the Russians, these emails she was only able to destroy because she set up her own server, but we can trust her. She who went from "dead broke" to being worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and had she won, would no doubt be on pace to becoming a billionaire, you know, like Putin.

The New York Times forgets that Hillary was the choice they supported.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

We all know that Clinton Corruption Inc. will take illegal international money from anybody.

Media casually look the other way.

Xmas said...

The big story in all of this is how did three random staffers see the identity of a US citizen in an email captured by the Intelligence Community.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

You have to hand it to the Golden Shower Left, at least they're persistent. Persistently foolish, but at least they're dragging their battered and bewildered selves out of bed in the morning.
At this point, these accusations have become so ineffectual and ridiculous that I just about have to think that Trump is initiating them for some obscure purpose of his own. There's no other rational explanation.

AllenS said...

Once written, twice... said...
Cruel neutrality my Ass Ann.

Are you missing a comma, or is your ass named Ann?

Hagar said...

And I still say that anyone who has damaging information (real) about our politicians should be thanked for bringing it to our attention - whoever they might be.

Sample Commenter said...

And if the Special Counsel is quietly building a potent criminal case against several members of the Trump Administration and even Trump himself,

LOL. Glad I read that between sips of coffee!

CStanley said...

Even if what they are insinuating is true, none of this has anything to to with the Russian government attempting to collude with the Trump campaign- unless by that one means that the Russian government decided to send an intermediary to spill the beans on its collusion with the Clinton campaign.

And why would it have been wrong of DJT Jr to take that meeting (other than the fact that it's rather naive to assume that the people on the left who were colluding with Russia somehow decided to out themselves)?

But my point is...what would have been unethical about exposing collusion by the other side?? I would put this question to "Once Bitten" WH keeps putting forth hypotheticals about how people would react if the parties were reversed. Well, how would you, presumably a Democrat and HrC supporter, have felt if Chelsea had taken this meeting to possibly get evidence of Trump's team's dirty money scheme with Russian partners. Would you not have felt that she SHOULD have followed that lead to see if she could expose something nafarious going on?

Brookzene said...

And that appears to be what Jr did in June, 2016 as he investigated the funding of the Criminal Organizations run by Soros, Obama and Clinton.

Ah ha! Don Jr. was running a criminal investigation - that's why he set up the the meeting.

Sounds like the Abscam defense.

Quayle said...

"Why they wouldn't want anti-fossil fuel Hillary who killed Keystone for them over Trump"

Because the real issue is floridation of our water, not oil and gas.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

At this point, these accusations have become so ineffectual and ridiculous that I just about have to think that Trump is initiating them for some obscure purpose of his own.

The accusation, boiled down to its essence, is that Trump Jr took a meeting with someone who said they had dirt on Hillary in regards to the Russians. The real scandal is that he took time out of his busy schedule for this since anybody with access to the internet could have used google to dig that info up.

rhhardin said...

It's the biggest news since Ross Perot met with aliens.

The Weekly World News had a sense of humor though. They knew they were mocking the press.

Brookzene said...

And why would it have been wrong of DJT Jr to take that meeting

Just spitballin' here: because you could then be blackmailed?

Matthew Sablan said...

I thought we knew since at least 2008 that foreign donors routinely manage to evade the safeguards to donate to campaigns, and that it didn't matter since Obama's campaign was never investigated for this foible, so I don't get why anyone is:

A) Surprised if Russians donated to Clinton

B) Why anyone would bother investigating it.

Sample Commenter said...

The big story in all of this is how did three random staffers see the identity of a US citizen in an email captured by the Intelligence Community.

The New York Times doesn't care, because, as Iowahawk said, their job is to "cover the important stories, cover them with a pillow until they stop struggling."

All of these liberals celebrating the use of the once dread "Patriot Act" as a source of innuendo against their political opponents is a sight to behold.

Chuck said...

Unknown said...
NPR this a.m. says the REALLY BIG STORY is that although there was no collusion (because the Russian lawyer didn't have any information that would have affected the election), Trump's people were WILLING TO COLLUDE if there had actually been any information that could have affected the results of the election.


Well, to be clear what NPR did, was to interview journalist Julia Ioffe. Who was born in Moscow, got a degree in Russian studies from Princeton, was a Fulbright Scholar in Russia, and who has since worked for The New Yorker, Foreign Policy, the New Republic and the New York Times Magazine.

That list of publications probably puts her in mind of far-left journalists. But she is a fierce critic of Putin, and has argued with Laurence O'Donnell on his MSNBC program about Julian Assange.

So that is what NPR does. They interview interesting, qualified people. Meanwhile, Hannity interviews Sebastian Gorka three times a week.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Just spitballin' here: because you could then be blackmailed?

For going to a meeting?

Sample Commenter said...

Just spitballin' here: because you could then be blackmailed?

So you could be blackmailed over a meeting, but not over taking tens of millions of dollars from, and doing valuable favors for the Russians? What gave you guys religion suddenly over this? Are we at war with Russia?

Brookzene, the 1980s called, and they want their foreign policy back!

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Well, to be clear what NPR did, was to interview journalist Julia Ioffe. Who was born in Moscow, got a degree in Russian studies from Princeton, was a Fulbright Scholar in Russia, and who has since worked for The New Yorker, Foreign Policy, the New Republic and the New York Times Magazine.

All of which is supposed to impress me, but somehow doesn't. If she's spouting bullshit, she's spouting bullshit. And she's spouting bullshit.

Sample Commenter said...

I am glad that he who shall not be named has dropped the LLR shtick and found his voice as a lefty.

Darrell said...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/julia-ioffe-finished-at-politico-over-obscene-trump-tweet.html

Chuck's interesting person, Ha!

Brookzene said...

For going to a meeting?

Yes, for going to a meeting where you are receiving, or think you will receive, help from a foreign agent - a Russian no less! -m to influence the outcome of an election.

Don Jr. missed putting this meeting down on his first go-round with the SF86.

Roy Jacobsen said...

It's the boy digging through the heap of horse shit. "I just know there's a pony in here somewhere!"

Gretchen said...

Let me get this straight, Obama had information that the Russians were meddling and did absolutely nothing, and the left is perfectly fine with that, but DTjr attended a meeting to get dirt on the opposition (because unlike Hillary he couldn't use the FBI and NSA) and he was supposed to bust the Russians over some lady who misrepresented what she had to get a meeting???

Perhaps Obama did nothing because the Russians ALWAYs try to meddle, and they are less successful than Obama was when he meddled in Israeli and european elections.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Asking about Clinton 's illegal activity should be illegal.

Right - NBC/TimeWarner-CNN- NYT?

Otto said...

"So I'd like to see Don Jr. produce the text. That would answer all these questions."
Ann working pro bono for Mueller.

Fabi said...

My favorite part of being a Republican is when we all get together and discuss the biographies of NPR commentators! Big fun -- don't knock it until you try it.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Making a movie that is critical of Hillary - should be illegal.

Digging into Clinton Corruption - should be illegal.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Trump's people were WILLING TO COLLUDE if there had actually been any information that could have affected the results of the election."

-- That's called opposition research, unless you assume that some law was broken. You know, like how tapes of Donald Trump just happened to show up when Clinton needed it, or the Romney hair cut story.

Brookzene said...

It's the boy digging through the heap of horse shit. "I just know there's a pony in here somewhere!"

Essentially the O.J. Simpson defense. We'll see if it works with Mueller.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The only thing worth listening to on NPR while driving is the music selections. They have one hour dedicated to Jazz. Another you can spend driving while listening to Classical selections. Very nice for those of us who refuse to subscribe to or pay for Sirus or somesuch service.

Often...AM radio stations are the only ones that are in signal range in our area. The rest of the FM stations are either Gaawd!!! or Country. So it is either NPR or bluetooth my oldies and jazz collection.

Soon as NPR starts talking, I turn it off and sing.

Laslo Spatula said...

The desired outcome is obvious: Impeachment.

So let's get it started. Stop fucking around.

Get people on record of where they stand.

McCain: I'm looking at you.

Then, when Trump is deposed, let the Civil War begin.

Now is as good a time as any.

The forest is overgrown: we need a fire to clear out the dead wood.

I am Laslo.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Opposition research regarding Hillary Clinton - you will face consequences.

Brookzene said...

"So I'd like to see Don Jr. produce the text. That would answer all these questions."
Ann working pro bono for Mueller.


Pretty sure Mueller already has this.

Fabi said...

If the matryoshka doll doesn't fit, you must acquit!

Darrell said...

Did anyone ever confirm those stories of Chelsea being driven around in a car carrier on the roof of the Clinton's station wagon?

Brookzene said...

The desired outcome is obvious: Impeachment.

That's the thing: impeachment is no guarantee of a desirable outcome. We are in a fuckload of mess.

Breezy said...

Unknown: "...Trump's people were WILLING TO COLLUDE if there had actually been any information that could have affected the results of the election."

Dems and MSM's people are ACTUALLY COLLUDING in the pretense of any collusion between Trump team and Russia, in an effort to cast doubt on the results of the election.

Chuck said...

Fabi said...
My favorite part of being a Republican is when we all get together and discuss the biographies of NPR commentators! Big fun -- don't knock it until you try it.

Let's just be clear. Julia Ioffe is not an NPR commentator. She doesn't work for NPR. She was asked to do an interview, based on her years of Russian studies and experience, to answer questions about the current state of Trump/Russian news.

So no; Julie Ioffe is not "NPR." And, she is not an "NPR commentator."

If you'd like to complain about NPR news production (as I have), that is fine. But do it right. Get your facts straight. Don't make basic boneheaded errors that would cause NPR producers and editors to laugh you out of the room.

I like smart and well-informed arguments. Not stupid and emotional ones.

BDNYC said...

Whoever this woman was, she probably lied about having dirt on Hillary just to get her foot in the door. I guess the big deal is whether Don Jr. agreed to the meeting thinking she was a representative of the Kremlin.

Mike Sylwester said...

Sample Commenter at 8:43 AM

These emails were from the same time that she received tens of millions of dollars from the Russians

That's a good point.

It was plausible that these Russians really did have some scandalous information about Hillary Clinton, because of her international pay-to-play corruption while she was Secretary of State. Much of that corruption involved wealthy people and organizations in Russia and in other regions of the former Soviet Union.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Yes, for going to a meeting where you are receiving, or think you will receive, help from a foreign agent - a Russian no less! -m to influence the outcome of an election.

I notice you say "help" and "influence" in order to obscure the fact that the help being offered was an offer of proof that Hillary had been engaged in nefarious activities with the Russians. I know you want to think thas is sinister, but its not. And most people who aren't blinded by ideological blinkers will see that.

Tell me, if an NYT reporter had been invited to such a meeting and proof had been presented, and the NYT decided not to publish the information because it would influence the election, would that be OK with you?

Matthew Sablan said...

If Trump's son maybe meeting with the intention to potentially collude to review information that was not illegal for him to review is a big story...

Why was it like pulling teeth to get anyone in the media to admit Podesta's ties to Russia?

Matthew Sablan said...

Was it colluding with foreign powers when Obama went overseas to campaign and glad hand during his elections to get favorable press from foreign news consultants?

Matthew Sablan said...

Because, if this meeting is impeachable, illegal collusion -- I think every president and nominee in history has probably illegally, impeachably colluded with foreign powers.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Oh, and:

a Russian no less!

Just wondering when you are going to get around to calling me unpatriotic.

The balls on these people!

Mike said...

If this was Chelsea setting up this meeting with her mom's campaign manager in tow Ann and her Althouse Hillbillies would be going ballistic.

No, we just want fairness. If the DNC-Media complex is going to explore every single transient meeting the Trump campaign had, then go ahead and look into any and all contact the Clinton campaign had with Russians too. Throw in the Chinese for good measure, since the Clinton family does have a history of using Chinese money and people to rig elections too.

Who did Podesta meet with? When and how many times?
Who did Mook meet with? When and how many times?

Since HRC wasn't all that into keeping official records, we can assume the answers to these unofficial meetings that took place are unavailable too.

Darrell said...

Chuck's girlfriend is just as nutty as he is.
https://twitter.com/juliaioffe

Ron Winkleheimer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brookzene said...

Just wondering when you are going to get around to calling me unpatriotic.

Sorry Russki. I'm talking about connected-to-the-Kremlin Russians. Color me politically incorrect. Or worse.


Ron Winkleheimer said...

If this was Chelsea setting up this meeting we would never have heard about it because its an absolute non-issue.

Brookzene said...

The balls on these people!

It's true. We're not snowflakes.

Brookzene said...

I think every president and nominee in history has probably illegally, impeachably colluded with foreign powers.

Make sure to turn your evidence over to the special counsel's office.

Chuck said...

No, we just want fairness. If the DNC-Media complex is going to explore every single transient meeting the Trump campaign had, then go ahead and look into any and all contact the Clinton campaign had with Russians too. Throw in the Chinese for good measure, since the Clinton family does have a history of using Chinese money and people to rig elections too.

You are talking about "the media" as if it were a public board that owed you some sort of fiduciary duty.

Private media companies, hiring editors of their choosing, and operating under the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment are going to cover whatever they like.

Send an email to Rush Limbaugh if you'd like something different. Call Sean Hannity. If you reach Bill O'Reilly, remember that it is "Name and town, if you wish to opine."

Or would you rather establish a Presidential Commission for Media Fairness, that would withdraw broadcast licenses or jail reporters for any stories deemed to be not "fair and balanced"?

Matthew Sablan said...

"I'm talking about connected-to-the-Kremlin Russians."

-- Pretty much everyone but the anonymous conspiracy theorist sources agree that the woman had no ties to the Kremlin I thought.

Static Ping said...

My general annoyance with this is there is no foundation for anything here. Normally when these sort of stories pop up during a scandal investigation, there is some scandal that has been established and this story potentially is related, filling in some detail. We have never gotten past Step 1 of establishing a scandal. The entire Russian collusion rumor is more or less based off the fact that Trump won so someone must have cheated. This has been accepted by the MSM basically because they desperately want to believe it is true and it serves their masters. I'm not interested in any of this stuff until someone can establish that there is a there there. The fact that the Russians meddle in our elections is not particularly interesting since we already knew that and they have been doing that for decades.

Brookzene said...

Was it colluding with foreign powers when Obama went overseas to campaign and glad hand during his elections to get favorable press from foreign news consultants?

Umm, no. Why?

Brookzene said...

-- Pretty much everyone but the anonymous conspiracy theorist sources agree that the woman had no ties to the Kremlin I thought.

But it only matters what Don Jr. thought.

Birches said...

We're on day three of NYT stories on this one meeting. Each story makes the NYT seem worse than the next. It's past grasping at straws now.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Umm, no. Why?"

-- Because that's the level of reaching going on about this meeting.

Darrell said...

The lawmakers disclosed multiple conversations with foreign diplomats who outlined active political meddling by the Obama administration's State Department, including the use of taxpayer funds to support leftist causes in Macedonia, Albania, Latin America, and Africa.

Pookie Number 2 said...

You are talking about "the media" as if it were a public board that owed you some sort of fiduciary duty.

Pointing out the media's inconsistency doesn't imply a fiduciary duty - it just explains why they're largely ignored. By analogy, if someone repeatedly says that he hates Trump, it becomes reasonable to assume that his accusations of misbehavior reflect his hatred, rather than any actual misbehavior.

Matthew Sablan said...

"But it only matters what Don Jr. thought."

-- Uh... didn't he already describe what he thought to us?

Matthew Sablan said...

What reasonable reason is there to assume someone thought the person requesting a meeting was a Kremlin agent?

Fabi said...

I guess I missed the clause in my comment in which I proclaimed Ioffe as an NPR commentator. Assume much, Chuck?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Russia!

Russia! Russia! Russia!

Russia! Russia! Russia!

I'm just sayin, Russia!

Brookzene said...

-- Uh... didn't he already describe what he thought to us?

Do you know why investigators want people to answer under oath in an investigation? There's no criminal penalty for lying on Twitter.

Darrell said...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-history-of-the-u-s-interfering-with-elections-elsewhere/?utm_term=.b429d9e24791

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrell said...

The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-92121403/

Sample Commenter said...

So a Russian offers information about how other Russians bribed Hillary, and it's a crime for Americans to hear it?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

NPR curious?

Nope.

Matthew Sablan said...

Right. But I'm asking *what reasonable reason* do you have for thinking someone is a Kremlin agent. This specific person, who absolutely no one on record has stated to think she misrepresented herself as a Kremlin agent.

You're asking for a blank check, and I'm just asking for one iota of a reason to believe that people thought they were meeting with the Kremlin or secret Russian spies, given that *no one, not even Goldstone* thinks she was.

This is a fishing expedition, which is fine, I guess, if that's how you want the country run. But, we saw that the government deemed it acceptable to get foreign assistance, as Obama's campaign suffered no serious consequences for accepting illegal foreign donations, and refusing to fix the security problems that allowed it.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Sample C - yes. It's a crime to know about Clinton crimes.

Brookzene said...

What reasonable reason is there to assume someone thought the person requesting a meeting was a Kremlin agent?

Matthew it's like you are not even trying. You need to get some reasonable argument or objection together or I'm going to just not respond - which you might even prefer.

A "reasonable reason" to assume Donald Jr. thought the person requesting the meeting is that three people familiar with the email told the NYTimes that that was part of the email. Now if you don't want to accept this or if you want to withhold belief until there is more evidence fine, say so. But stop acting like you didn't even read Althouse's text.

Mike Sylwester said...

Paul Manafort did not work for Russia.

Rather, he worked for Viktor Yanukovych, a prominent politician in Ukraine who was elected twice (2004 and 2009) to the position of President of Ukraine. In regard to the 2009 election, international observers found that the election was fair.

Much of the Ukrainian electorate is ethnic Russian. Some of the country's ethnic Ukrainians favor closer relations with Russia. Yanukovych ran on a pro-Russian platform and put together a coalition of voters who elected him to be President of Ukraine.

Manafort's only relationship to Russia is that he worked for a politician in Ukraine who won two presidential elections by running on a pro-Russian platform.

* While working for Yanukovych, Manafort did not work for Russia.

* After Yanukovych was removed from office, Manafort did not work for Russia.

* Manafort never worked for Russia.

After Yanukovych was removed from office in Ukraine in February 2014, Manafort gradually wrapped up his business (smuggling money out of Ukraine) and closed his office there in December 2015.

After Yanukovych and his political party were removed from office in 2014, Manafort's business in Ukraine would not last much more than a year.

Manafort did not subsequently go to work for anyone in Russia.

The FBI has been trying for a year to connect Manafort to Russia. If the FBI had found a connection, "Crazy Comey the Leaker" would already have leaked it.

Sally Yates too would have leaked it.

John Brennan too would have leaked it.

Therefore, we can be triply-sure that the FBI could not find a connection.

Darrell said...

The NYT needs to follow up on CNN's most important revelation--the two-scoops story.

Brookzene said...

Why not just say "I defend Donald Jr. on this because I'm willfully ignorant of what's been reported"?

Darrell said...

I defend Brookzene because I'm willfully ignorant.

Matthew Sablan said...

"A "reasonable reason" to assume Donald Jr. thought the person requesting the meeting is that three people familiar with the email told the NYTimes that that was part of the email."

-- That's not reasonable when Goldstone says there is no reason to think that. Especially when the NYT has published incorrect things about the Russia investigation multiple times due to believing anonymous sources.

The NYT has the burden of proof, and anonymous sources don't work any more in the Russian story because they've been *wrong so many times* and a named source is saying "No, that's not right."

Sample Commenter said...

It doesn't matter that Jr didn't think she was an agent of the Kremlin but it absolutely matters that Jr thought that she might have some further background on a New York Times story, for example, about Hillary's ties to Russian Cronies.

I will explain it for you as succinctly as I can: REASONS!

Hari said...

I propose a new tag: newsiness

MikeR said...

The assumption that Russian was trying to help Trump win has always been silly. If they were anything like the rest of us, they expected Clinton to win. Their goal would have been to make more Americans unhappy with the Clinton presidency: all the Sanders supporters and all the Trump supporters.

Chuck said...

First, I supplied biographical information on Julia Ioffe, the journalist who was interviewed on NPR's Morning Edition this morning.

Then:
Fabi said...
My favorite part of being a Republican is when we all get together and discuss the biographies of NPR commentators! Big fun -- don't knock it until you try it.


Then I (further, and more specifically) pointed out that Julia Ioffe is not an NPR commentator at all.

And then:
Fabi said...
I guess I missed the clause in my comment in which I proclaimed Ioffe as an NPR commentator. Assume much, Chuck?


So I'll just ask; what was it was you were trying to communicate?

Big Mike said...

With all this baloney I won't need lunch meat for a decade.

Darrell said...

All the newsiness that fits, we print!

Matthew Sablan said...

By the way, Brookzene, try to dial it down. I read the same thing you did. Which is how I know that the three anonymous sources should not be weighed that heavily.

Sample Commenter said...

Why not just say "I defend Donald Jr. on this because I'm willfully ignorant of what's been reported"?

Why not just say I condemn Donald Jr on this because I'm willfully obtuse?

Sample Commenter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sample Commenter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

It's a crime for any GOP to do any opposition research on a democrat.

Only democrats are allowed to do opposition research.

Brookzene said...

By the way, Brookzene, try to dial it down. I read the same thing you did. Which is how I know that the three anonymous sources should not be weighed that heavily.

Right Matthew. Remind me to dial it down with you. I'm good with that. I just believe you should have said "I don't believe that," instead of taking a why-on-earth-would-anyone-believe-that approach. It's pretty evident why it's assumed DTJr knew he was dealing with connected Russians.

Matthew Sablan said...

It is perfectly reasonable to ask why people are believing anonymous sources who have routinely been wrong when the main voice who should know what happened (Goldstone) says that the anonymous sources are wrong. That's irrational.

Sample Commenter said...

"What's been reported" is just the beginning. Reading comprehension is the fist step to critical thinking, it's not the whole thing. You can't just take an article from the New York Times at face value. Liberals seem to think it's just a matter of learning the propaganda as catechism.

BDNYC said...

The NYT's credibility is so low now that I simply don't believe their characterization of the email without actually seeing the email for myself. I don't trust their sources, and I even wonder if all "three" actually exist. I wouldn't even trust a PDF of the email supplied by the NYT at this point. I would need to see an original image that I can trust has not been doctored. This is what their Russia-Trump hysteria has done to them. Their bias has made them gullible and their reporting slipshod.

Sample Commenter said...

It's pretty evident why it's assumed DTJr knew he was dealing with connected Russians.

I agree with you on that. It is pretty evident why its ASSUMED.

Brookzene said...

Guy who is usually pretty civil even if we completely disagree asks me to dial it down with him. Of course, why not? That's the right thing to do and no need to make personal enemies unnecessarily just because we disagree. Good check.

#CivilityBullshit

Darrell said...

The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. during the presidential campaign denied in an exclusive interview with NBC News that she had any connection to the Kremlin and insisted she met with President Donald Trump’s son in 2016 to discuss sanctions between Russia and the U.S., not to hand over information about Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

“I never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that,” Natalia Veselnitskaya said.

Darrell said...

No word yet why she was after moose and squirrel, though.

Sample Commenter said...

Brookie, I think we are just embarrassed for you.

Unknown said...

Chuck, the NPR interviewer asked leading questions that lead to a really stupid charge of having an attitude that could lead to collusion event though there was not collusion.

Fabi said...

No luck on finding that clause, Chuck? A simple "no I couldn't" would have involved a lot less cutting and pasting. But, please, return to your off-topic threadjacking -- it's your specialty.

Brookzene said...

Brookie, I think we are just embarrassed for you.

I FEEL like I wouldn't give a fuck what you thought about anything. Just throwin' that out there, to you, "We".

Birkel said...

Is this Russian lawyer an immigrant? Is she of Russian descent or is she a Russian national?

Are we supposed to distrust immigrants have the best interests of the United States in mind, these days?

Can a Leftist help me here?

Brookzene said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hari said...

1) If Russia had legally obtained information that was damaging to Clinton, is there any legal reason that The Trump campaign should have refused accept and use it?

2) If Russia had a legally obtained copy of the Entertainment Tonight tape of Trump, is there any legal reason that the Clinton campaign should have refused to accept and use it?

Sample Commenter said...

I FEEL like I wouldn't give a fuck what you thought about anything.

I would take you a lot more seriously if it bothered you the tiniest bit about Hillary's ties to the Russians.

Chuck said...

Unknown said...
Chuck, the NPR interviewer asked leading questions that lead to a really stupid charge of having an attitude that could lead to collusion event though there was not collusion.

Okay, but it was an interview. With a clearly-identified interview subject. The answers, the substance, were being provided by someone outside of NPR who had been invited by NPR to discuss an area in which she had special expertise. Commenters above were griping about "NPR," when in fact it was Julia Ioffe of The Atlantic.

And here is the segment in question:

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/11/536595555/just-how-closely-linked-is-the-kremlin-linked-lawyer

(NPR is really great about having an easily searchable, well-organized website where stories can be read and podcasts heard with just a click.)

Brookzene said...

I would take you a lot more seriously if it bothered you the tiniest bit about Hillary's ties to the Russians.

Hillary should be impeached.

Chuck said...

Fabi said...
No luck on finding that clause, Chuck? A simple "no I couldn't" would have involved a lot less cutting and pasting. But, please, return to your off-topic threadjacking -- it's your specialty.

If you weren't talking about Julia Ioffe's status, what were you talking about?

CStanley said...

The plot thickens....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/team-trump-kushner-and-don-jrs-meeting-with-a-russian-lawyer-may-have-been-a-democratic-setup
DJT lawyer saying basically that the meeting was a setup by....wait for it.....GPS Fusion (the firm that created the fake dossier against Trump, and which Sen Grassley and the Senate investigative committee are looking into for ITS ties to the Kremlin.)

“We have learned from both our own investigation and public reports that the participants in the meeting misrepresented who they were and who they worked for,” Mark Corallo, spokesperson for Trump’s outside counsel, said in a statement released a few hours after the original New York Times story published.
“Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to develop opposition research on the president and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier,” Corallo continued, referring to the strategic intelligence firm hired by anti-Trump Republicans, then by Democrats, to do opposition research on the candidate.
(Fusion GPS eventually retained former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele to research potential connections between Trump and Russia, an investigation that resulted in a dossier that alleged financial, political, and personal connections between the then-president-elect and the Kremlin—a dossier that Trump’s communications team might have preferred to go unmentioned.)
“These developments raise serious issues as to exactly who authorized and participated in any effort by Russian nationals to influence our election in any manner,” Corallo concluded.

If this is true, Goldstone was just an intermediary as a way to get the meeting set up with DJT Jr.

Sample Commenter said...

Hillary should be impeached

This was all known well before the primary, and your party didn't give a flying fuck. Excuse me for believing that this is nothing but fake outrage now.

Comanche Voter said...

All of this Russia conspiracy whinging at the New York Times and the Washington Post brings to mind the story of a baker who wanted to bake a cake--but he had no flour, he had no eggs, he had no sugar, and by dang he didn't have any baking powder. That and he couldn't light his oven--but by dang he produced a "cake" of sorts.

Night Owl said...

If Hillary was engaging in illegal activity with Russians isn't that something that any American would want to know? I don't get what the "crime" is here. If Chelsea took a meeting to discover whether Donald was getting kickbacks from Russians she'd be seen as a hero, and rightly so.

It really is a fact that in the eyes of the media and other Trump haters EVERYTHING Trump and his people do is a crime, just because it was they who did it, and no other reason. I've said it before, wake me when someone gets arrested. Otherwise I'm ignoring this crap.

Khesanh 0802 said...

I noticed in a couple of the latest stories - in various msms - based on "unnamed /anonymous" sources that, in each, we have three "unnamed/anonymous" sources confirming whatever it is that they are not courageous enough to put their names on. Apparently that has become the latest editorial requirement: one anonymous source? no good!; three anonymous sources? you have the basis for a story! It is pretty humorous/ironic /sad.

"Sample commenter" mentioned something that made me see the obvious disconnect between this story where the Russians are supposed to be ready to hurt Hillary (maybe - not really) and the "Steele Dossier" (sourced from Russia, supposedly) that had Trump pissing on Russian beds , etc, etc. That certainly wasn't intended to help Trump. So I am a bit confused as to who, exactly, the Russians were "helping" during the election.

The other thing I find interesting about the "meeting" is that everyone but the host walked out after a short time knowing that the whole thing was, as Van Jones would say: "a nothingburger - or Althouse's proud-to-be- hillbillies would say: "a big steaming pile of bullshit."

CStanley said...

Blogger Hari said...
1) If Russia had legally obtained information that was damaging to Clinton, is there any legal reason that The Trump campaign should have refused accept and use it?

2) If Russia had a legally obtained copy of the Entertainment Tonight tape of Trump, is there any legal reason that the Clinton campaign should have refused to accept and use it?


Questions which take on enormous relevance if the information I just posted from Sen Grassley is accurate, since there is suspicion that GPS Fusion has ties to the Kremlin and was funded by HRC campaign once Trump got the GOP nomination.

I think Democrats should be forced to answer these questions in the abstract...is it verboten to get oppo research that might have been provided with the assistance of the Russian government? Be careful...it might be a trick question.

Sam L. said...

Just one more (unnecessary) reason to despise the NYT.

Bay Area Guy said...

What a joke. The Dem party and the NYTimes are still flogging this Russisn non-story - and now they have Natasha! And an E-mail! And a meeting!!!

Where is Boris Badenov when you really need him?

Laslo Spatula said...

9:05 AM: "I like smart and well-informed arguments. Not stupid and emotional ones."

Affen im Glashaus sitzt sollte nicht mit Steinen werfen.

I am Laslo.

Sample Commenter said...

Well, we know from the Democratics' position on Citizens United" that the First Amendment must be suspended where criticism of Hillary is concerned, next to that, what is the American electorate's right to know?

It's the cult of Clintonism that simply won't die.

Brookzene said...

This was all known well before the primary, and your party didn't give a flying fuck. Excuse me for believing that this is nothing but fake outrage now.

These Trumpistas follow his lead perfectly. Quick quick quick, change the subject! Hillary!

We'll get those Olympics in the USA, you wait and see. #MAGA.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

All of this is Podesta Clinton CORRUPTION. Media in bed with it.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The entire fake news Russia! meltdown is Hillary-Podesta corruption revenge.
Media dutifully reporting for duty.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Quick quick quick, change the subject!

How is it changing the subject to point out that the accusations are insincere?

Fabi said...

The thrill of getting together with all my Republican friends and discussing the biographies of NPR personalities. Big fun! Thought I made that black-letter clear, Chuckles? Now get back on topic, big boy. Chop, chop!

Chuck said...

Khesanh 0802 said...
I noticed in a couple of the latest stories - in various msms - based on "unnamed /anonymous" sources that, in each, we have three "unnamed/anonymous" sources confirming whatever it is that they are not courageous enough to put their names on. Apparently that has become the latest editorial requirement: one anonymous source? no good!; three anonymous sources? you have the basis for a story! It is pretty humorous/ironic /sad.

In fact, they all (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, NPR, networks) have internal standards on how to go about using and confirming info from sources who wish to remain anonymous.

Do mistakes get made? Of course. Are they usually wrong? No. It is customary that an anonymous source needs to be corroborated, if possible, by one or two or more other sources.

And as for anonymous sources in general, let's remember that for much of his adult life, Donald Trump has made it something of a personal specialty, tipping off favored journalists with stories anonymously and even supplying his own fake sourcing in the form of his fake personae "John Miller" and "John Bar[r]on."


Sample Commenter said...

These Trumpistas follow his lead perfectly. Quick quick quick, change the subject! Hillary!

Did you read the story in the New York Times that we are. discussing? Let me quote the relevant passage for you.

Goldstone contacted Don Jr. in an email and suggested that people had information concerning alleged wrongdoing by Democratic Party front-runner, Hillary Clinton, in her dealings with Russia."

I forgot though, your stated policy is to not engage, but to "mock and ridicule." Try harder.

Brookzene said...

How is it changing the subject to point out that the accusations are insincere?

Never mind the accusations - some are no doubt sincere and others insincere. The question is the evidence, and what the players make of it.

Calling mine or anyone else's sincerity into question isn't going to help the Trump Administration, that's for sure.

Chuck said...

Fabi said...
The thrill of getting together with all my Republican friends and discussing the biographies of NPR personalities. Big fun! Thought I made that black-letter clear, Chuckles? Now get back on topic, big boy. Chop, chop!

Got it. I take that as "Fabi has no good answer, and Chuck was right."

I was hoping that you had an answer, on the chance that I had somehow missed your point. Not.


Sample Commenter said...

Sorry for that last sentence, I just assumed by the style that Brookzene was The Unknown Troll.

Dixie_Sugarbaker said...

I would definitely guess Comey as one of the sources. Wasn't he pictured going into the NYT offices a week or two ago? Also, thanks to all the 'unmasking' he would know about probably every email that has any vague relationship to Russia or any Rissian or anything remotely Russian.

The NYT sure is comfortable printing what sources say are in emails. Apparently good journalism no longer dictates that you actually see the evidence before you print it. I think the Natuonal Enquirer currently has stricter journalistic standards than the NYT. Sad!

Sample Commenter said...

The question is the evidence, and what the players make of it.


Oh yes, the evidence the "assumptions" about what was in Trump's mind. That evidence. I forgot, sorry.

Pookie Number 2 said...

The question is the evidence, and what the players make of it.

What evidence have you seen?

Birches said...

I propose a new tag: newsiness

I second this proposal.

Brookzene said...

Sorry for that last sentence, I just assumed by the style that Brookzene was The Unknown Troll.

I have no idea what you are talking about but I don't think it matters. You are stuck on Trump = MAGA.

Brookzene said...

What evidence have you seen?

Doesn't matter what I've seen. It matters what evidence the players have seen and the reports are it's some interesting stuff.

Sample Commenter said...

Why don't lefties here care about the abuse for political purposes of the Patriot act, for example, any more than they care about the deca-millions Hillary took from Putin cronies.... I wonder. It's almost as if stuff only matters if it helps them politically.... And then the least insinuation counts as a steel trap legal case.

The question is the evidence, and what the players make of it.

He does have a point here that if the Democrats win the house, they will be able to interpret the evidence in whatever manner they find politically convenient and use it to impeach Trump, but removing him will take a majority that they won't even sniff in the Senate. Clinton was impeached, but not removed, as you may recall.

Boxty said...

Obama was using U.S. intelligence services to spy on the Trump campaign and passing the information on to Hillary's campaign.

Once Trump won the election, Obama's team concocted the cockamamie story about Russian hacking and collusion to cover for their criminal spying.

These are the same inveterate liars that said the Benghazi attack was due to a Youtube video, said that Clinton and Attorney General Lynch met on an airport tarmac to talk about their grandchildren, and rigged the entire Democrat primary election in favor of Clinton.

They are not only inveterate liars, they are bad liars to boot. Stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. Obama is just plain crooked and a liar and has been that way from the very start of his career in politics.

BDNYC said...

Whoa. Don Jr. released the email. I have to admit, the originating email from the weird tabloid dude sounds a bit collusion-y.

Quaestor said...

The Why

Why is The New York Times destroying itself? What advantage does a venerable yet financially struggling newspaper gain by peddling stories that even The Enquirer would reject as poorly researched? Is it because they have that much invested in Hillary that they willing to throw themselves like Brunhilde on Clinton's blazing pyre? Or does it have to do with illegal immigration?

Most people assume illegal immigration is the key survival strategy of the Democratic Party, and I'm not saying it isn't, but there may be more to the subject than meets the eye. The New York Times is the sole property of Carlos Slim, a Mexican national and a member of the highest stratum of Mexican society. What is his interest?

The poor of Mexico are much poorer in comparison to America's poor and especially in relation to the most wealthy. In spite of their poverty the lower class in America own things the poor of Mexico cannot afford, such as automobiles, smartphones, cable television, and refrigerators. Poverty in America often means lack of access to luxury items and vacation travel rather than the desperation that drives many Mexicans and Central Americans to make the hazardous journey over the northern border and across the arid wastes of Arizona, New Mexico, and southwestern Texas. Why is that? How come an oil-rich country like Mexico does not have a social safety net in place to ameliorate the worst aspects of poverty? The answer is they do, and it is the cheapest system imaginable whereby the wealthy of Mexico are not taxed to provide the safety net. The Mexican social safety net is called the United States of America, and it is paid for largely by the poor living north of the Rio Grande who suffer unemployment because their labor is priced out of the market by cheap imports — a familiar story to American manufacturers who have lost their livelihoods to imported goods, but not so familiar to American workers who are losing their livelihoods by reason of another kind of import.

By attacking Trump Slim is acting on behalf of his class which stands to lose much of it wealth as Mexico is forced by the Wall to implement a social welfare state financed by domestic taxation rather than emigration.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 343   Newer› Newest»