The Russiagate conspiracy theory

[TerryM]

I wouldn't involve myself in this if I wasn't concerned about the possibility of Trump, or Pence, winning in 2020.


CNN is backing off, the NYT is issuing retractions, and Carl Woodward is warning of the dire consequences that pushing this story, is having on the reputation of the News Industry. The latest poll I've seen is that 67% of Democrats and 13% of Republicans now believe that there is something there.


The story isn't growing legs, what legs it once had have atrophied and it will soon be slithering sideways trying to find it's way out of the glare of the political arena.


Trump has so many vulnerabilities that beating this one note incessantly just drowns out all the unpopular decisions he's made on so many other fronts.


If people look at a ballot and base their decision only on whether they believe that Trump conspired with Putin to gain his place of power, we will lose the next election.


If they see Trump as the jerk that dropped the ball on the Paris Accord, failed to provide decent health care for all, cost American jobs through bad trade agreements, and was responsible for plenty of body bags because of belligerent foreign policies, then we will be swept into office.


Win or lose. it's your decision.
The only negative is that the rest of it will also pay for your mistakes.
Terry

[Archimid]

There are consequences for exaggerating the story*. There are worse consequences for ignoring the truth. 

The truth as I see it is that Trump plan is a coincidence of interests between Russian/oil interests and confederate flag waving Americans. He took maximum advantage of that coincidence and is now delivering for both. A small but significant minority of Americans stand to gain a lot, most Americans will lose and the usual minorities will lose everything. The world will continue on.



* only for honest people, crooks like Trump can exaggerate to their heart's content. They cover up lies with more lies. Fake gold everywhere.

[Zeug Gezeugt]

To me that is as hard evidence as can be found. Yet to you that is not evidence.

An allegation, whether by 17 US intelligence agencies re Russian interference, or for that matter climate deniers repetitive accusations of scientific collusion, is not evidence, pure and simple. You are simply confused Archimid as to your terms of reference.

An allegation, or a hypothesis for a science analogy, is not evidence of itself. You present evidence in support of an allegation, or a hypothesis, in order to prove the fact of the matter.

So I ask you again, since you conveniently avoiding answering the question, to give an example of what constitutes evidence in this case.

I'm not avoiding answering your question, just trying to unpack your rather parochial understanding of what constitutes 'evidence' towards a 'proof' of an 'allegation'. I would suggest, and quite seriously not intending any insult, that you don't really understand what you're talking about and would probably benefit from a basic course in logic, perhaps a 101 on legal proceedings and terminology, or a refresher course on the basics of empirical science.

I would think any evidence in support of the allegations concerning Russian interference, Trump's obstruction, and possible collusion between the two would actually constitute evidence in this case. Just remember the basic principle that an allegation IS NOT evidence of itself, and you should be right.

Given that there are only allegations at this point, then by simple logic you should be able to conclude that there is as yet no evidence presented as a proof of those allegations. Plenty of smoke to rile up the simple folks at home but no actual fire as yet. It is literally all hearsay, a lot of anonymous he said she said, although there might be some blowback concerning BC's possible collusion with Lynch on the runway, Clinton Foundation ties to Russian money and so on... those are actually documented and could form an evidentiary basis for an investigation.

Russiagate not so much, as yet, but where there's a witch hunt there's a kangaroo court in the making! Hands up those who want in on the lynch mob?

[AbruptSLR]

Drip drip drip:

Title: "Cybersecurity consultant says Donald Trump-connected Russian election colluder tried to recruit him"

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/cyber-consultant-says-donald-trump-russian-colluder-recruit-him/3699/

Extract: "Late this week the Wall Street Journal reported on recently deceased Republican operative Peter W. Smith, who was trying to collude with Russian election hackers, and who claimed to be working with Michael Flynn and connected to Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon. Everyone from the Donald Trump campaign is denying any association with Smith. But now one of the main sources for the WSJ story is independently coming forward with why he believes Smith was in fact working with the Trump campaign."

[Archimid]

An allegation, or a hypothesis for a science analogy, is not evidence of itself. You present evidence in support of an allegation, or a hypothesis, in order to prove the fact of the matter.

You are misleading again.

"An allegation, or a hypothesis for a science analogy, is not evidence of itself."

That is true.

"You present evidence in support of an allegation, "

And there is plenty of evidence to support the allegations: See Glenn Greenwald's link I posted above for the most clear of them all:

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/


That is a report by the NSA, reported by Glenn Greenwald, where the hacking attempts are presented as clear as possible. Top get better evidence than that you will need the actual bits of the computer systems in questions and several degrees in computer science. There is no doubt about it. Russia attempted to hack the US elections.

I know your fallacious argument. You are now going to claim that report is not evidence, that is just an allegation by the NSA, followed by an allegation by Glenn Greenwald. If this was a scientific debate you would have a point, but this is no scientific debate. This is a legal and political debate about top secret spying activities. Evidence will not have the same standard as an open scientific debate.  You maliciously exploit that fact to confuse others.

That's why I challenge you to give me an example of what you consider evidence. My bet is no evidence will be good enough for you.  NONE. In the same token there will be no source that could possibly convince you otherwise. NONE. You go ahead insult me all you want, I know exactly what you are doing. 
                                   
For the obstruction charges there is even more evidence, there are public confessions from Trump himself, and the actions that Trump has taken speak for themselves. The thing is, these actions and confessions are so in your face and open that they almost become normal. 

Here is Trump confessing to firing Comey for the Russia investigation:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/11/donald-trump-james-comey-firing-russia-investigation

Is a confession evidence? I imagine that according to your fallacious logic a confession is just an allegation.


The collusion charges are the real tough ones. It is clear that there is no evidence of collusion that directly involve Trump. That is perfectly expected. Trump uses other people to commit crimes for him. I bet his tiny hands are clean. However, those surrounding Trump seem to be dirty as hell, starting with Flynn, who is by all definitions a criminal.  Following Trump you have Page, Manaforte, Kushner. The allegations against all of them are very damning, but there is yet no clear evidence of collusion, but there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence.  Maybe through the course of the ongoing investigation evidence emerges, but it will be tough to find it.

[Buddy]

Archimid:

One of the toughest things in life to learn is this:

"Don't waste your time on someone who deserves your silence."

We all have a finite amount of time and a finite amount of energy....use it wisely...

[Zeug Gezeugt]

You are misleading again.

And there is plenty of evidence to support the allegations: See Glenn Greenwald's link I posted above for the most clear of them all:

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/

That is a report by the NSA, reported by Glenn Greenwald, where the hacking attempts are presented as clear as possible. Top get better evidence than that you will need the actual bits of the computer systems in questions and several degrees in computer science. There is no doubt about it. Russia attempted to hack the US elections.

That one is a beauty yes? But the article is not by Greenwald, and the NSA intelligence assessment it quotes is precisely my point. 

While the document provides a rare window into the NSA’s understanding of the mechanics of Russian hacking, it does not show the underlying “raw” intelligence on which the analysis is based. A U.S. intelligence officer who declined to be identified cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion from the document because a single analysis is not necessarily definitive.

The report itself is someone's anonymous review of intelligence with no actual "raw" data i.e., evidence. It makes bare assertions that the Russians did it, so again you're simplistically mistaking allegations for evidence. Remember the basic principle: An allegation is not evidence of itself. 

I'd go so far as to say the document and its report have probably been released so as to influence gullible public opinion as to the reality of Russian hacking, i.e., it's propaganda warfare. I'm also reading the same material you are, and I can tell you honestly that there is no evidence of Russian hacking as of yet!

Maybe you should do as Buddy says and just ignore people like me who can coherently argue the point with you, lest your faith in Russiagate be tested too hard? Odds are I'm just a Putin bot anyways right? KEEP THE FAITH ARCHIE! AND GODS BLESS THE NSA!!

[Archimid]

Of course Zeug, whatever you say. I'm still waiting for your standard for evidence in an international, cybernetic and highly political issue. There is nothing you will consider evidence of something you don't want people to believe.

[TerryM]

Could I suggest that with the NSA's ability to scoop up and store every email on the internet they would most certainly have copies of every transaction between Trumps team and Putin, as well as every transaction between the DNC and Russia. Since they haven't offered up any of these missives after all these months there are only three possibilities that come to mind.


The email trail simply doesn't exist & therefor the NSA cant produce it.
The NSA has a very poor search algorithm and hasn't found the email trail yet.
The NSA has the evidence, but isn't releasing it yet.


While I believe the first option is the most likely, the second and third options certainly deserve a look.
That the NSA still hasn't located the GOTCHA documents, but might in the future, becomes less likely with each passing day. This has been big news for a long time and I'd assume that the NSA has spent considerable man-hours trying to find some evidence that a conspiracy actually occurred.
The NSA could be sitting on the evidence, but why would they do so? Everything regarding the matter seems to have been leaking from day one and if a trail existed, I have a feeling that some one at some level would have spilled the beans.


Based on these thoughts I doubt that the NSA has the evidence, and based on that interpretation I doubt that there is any evidence to find. - no evidence, no crime, poof!


Terry

[Archimid]

Terry, those are indeed the three possibilities, but #2 is not real. Russian agencies have a cyber security corps that rivals that of the NSA and Trump's accomplices did everything they could to hide the trail. The trail doesn't even have to be invisible, if it is just not usable in court, it is secure enough.

I think option 3 is the most likely one, the NSA, FBI and all involved agencies have evidence, mostly circumstantial, but they will not release any of it unless they have enough to make a criminal case. And that is incredibly difficult in any case. In this case is even more difficult because as we have all seen, POTUS is obstructing justice and the GOP lacks the balls to defend the country.

The heated media environment created by Trump, and the avalanche of lies and misinformation launched by Trump and the right wing media complicates matters even further.

[TerryM]

That the NSA has the evidence and is holding it very close to it's chest is a real possibility. Just why they would doing so is above my pay grade.


If you remember the downing of the airliner over eastern Ukraine a few years back, there was and is a somewhat similar situation. Everyone involved accused everyone else involved as having brought it down, yet no one offered up the proof they had that one of the other parties was guilty.
The Russians had continuous radar of that border region hotspot. The Americans had been running a full spectrum radar/optical exercise that week, centered very close to where the plane was hit. The Ukrainian army tried to keep the inspectors from the area and to destroy the evidence with artillery, and the separatists sent verifiable false radio messages.
There was in addition a Canadian inspector of some sort who was on site when the wreckage was still smoldering that took photos of what he believed were machine gun traces across the cockpit, and a Spanish air traffic controller who either disappeared or never existed.


The Ukrainians insisted that the separatists had brought it down with a missile. The local separatists said a Ukrainian fighter had brought it down. The missile manufacturer insisted it could prove that it wasn't their missile. The Ukrainians insisted that their fighters couldn't fly high enough to have been involved, and the locals said there was no rocket trail from a missile attack.


Blame still has not been assigned - yet both the Russians and the Americans have photographic and Radar evidence that has to show exactly who the responsibility lies with. Neither side will release their evidence, yet each side is well aware of not just what they have, but also what the other side has as proof.


Are they each afraid that if they show their cards the other will somehow be able to trump it with their revelation? Are they afraid that if the other is proven guilty this would lead to an even greater conflict?
It's above my pay grade to try to understand why the innocent party wouldn't simply reveal the evidence that would prove their own innocence. So the name calling continues.


If the NSA does have proof of a Trump/Putin conspiracy, and if Trump is in fact guilty, why wouldn't they leak it, spill it, or do something to bring the speculation to an end?


Terry

[Zeug Gezeugt]

I'm still waiting for your standard for evidence in an international, cybernetic and highly political issue. There is nothing you will consider evidence of something you don't want people to believe.

I have no real care for whatever you believe Archimid, I do care about the facts of these matters and methodological approaches to notions of 'truth' and most especially in the public sphere. Ignorance and beliefs based on feeling trumping reason will be the death of this species.

And to repeat myself re 'evidence', my own personal standard for evidence in this "international, cybernetic and highly political issue" would be any form of actual evidence!

And it's not just me saying so, here's Gareth Porter's latest, again for your edification: Foisting Blame for Cyber-hacking on Russia

Everything about Russiagate stinks to high heaven of propagandised manipulation of the US people by their own political, intelligence and corporate media elites. My money would be on Terry's option #1, what odds would you give me on a $100USD bet?

[Archimid]

I'm still waiting for your standard for evidence in an international, cybernetic and highly political issue. There is nothing you will consider evidence of something you don't want people to believe.

I'm still waiting.

[Zeug Gezeugt]

I'm still waiting.

Waiting for what? Actual evidence? Me too!

But I can't blame you for being frustrated, your slam dunk, "the most clear of them all", "no doubt about it", piece of evidence for Russian hacking, the Intercept's NSA report, turned out to be an unsubstantiated allegation.

If only we had the  actual "raw" data i.e., evidence on which it was based, then we would have ... wait for it ... actual evidence!

Or what about where it all started, with the CrowdStrike evidence of Russian hacking on that DNC server? Isn't that 'evidence' too? Unfortunately it would have been actual evidence of Russian hacking if the DNC had 'allowed' the FBI access to their servers...! How can anyone not 'allow' the FBI access to anything I hear you say? Insane yes?

Only CrowdStrike had access to the actual "raw" data i.e., evidence on the server, and it's a commercial entity with political affiliations with the DNC and the anti-Putin Atlantic Council which unfortunately means its allegations of Russian hacking are not only unsubstantiated but also hopelessly compromised.

Add to that fact the hacking software they identified was already openly available on the web, plus the absurdity of the 'world class' hackers being dumb enough to leave obvious clues to their 'identity' behind, their allegation of Russian hacking became laughable and was subsequently quietly put aside by the US corporate media and Russiagate polemicists.

So, the actual "raw" data i.e., evidence, would be evidence. And both you and I are "still waiting".

[SteveMDFP]

That the NSA has the evidence and is holding it very close to it's chest is a real possibility. Just why they would doing so is above my pay grade.

Probably because all such evidence is likely to be classified.  And any CIA/NSA/FBI/DIA/Etc employee who divulges it goes straight to prison.  Unless he gives it to a journalist with a stipulation that he remain an anonymous source. That's why we haven't seen source evidence, except for anonymous sources -- which many dismiss.

So peer review of such cases happens wholly within the intelligence community.  There's potentially another level of review in the Congressional Intelligence committees.  But they can't reveal the evidence either, only non-classified conclusions.

So in any matter where the source evidence is classified, we have no choice but to trust that professional intelligence officers are being professional.  Certainly there are individual cases where those professionals have misled the public.  But in this matter, at least three agency heads have sworn under oath that they have no doubt that Putin personally ordered interference in the election.  I find that highly credible evidence in itself. 

[Martin Gisser]

That the NSA has the evidence and is holding it very close to it's chest is a real possibility. Just why they would doing so is above my pay grade.

Probably because all such evidence is likely to be classified.  And any CIA/NSA/FBI/DIA/Etc employee who divulges it goes straight to prison.  Unless he gives it to a journalist with a stipulation that he remain an anonymous source.

..and has gained physical access to a copy without signature. (That's how they caught Reality L. Winner.)
So, the leaks are mostly verbal.

[Buddy]

Looks like Donnie's boss (Vladimir) is starting to squeeze his small little testicles.  Vlad is putting together his Christmas list of things that Russia wants from the US....they will be discussing in Europe.  And Donnie is going to have to produce.

Russia wants their two houses back on the US east coast...and Vlad can ask for about anything else he wants.  This is going to get interesting...

[Zeug Gezeugt]

So, the leaks are mostly verbal.

Yes, as I keep saying, unsubstantiated hearsay from mostly anonymous sources, such is the evidentiary trail for Russiagate ... or lack of it.

This is literally the same MO for the Iraqi WMD, remember those aluminium tubes? Ties to Al Qaeda? Powell's degrading show and tell to the UN? That PR campaign for the criminal atrocity of 'Shock and Awe' against the people of Iraq was also blatantly obvious propaganda lies at the time. The rule is to just keep repeating the lies until they become part of the background understanding, thus Russian election interference becomes an established factoid even on this forum!

US political elites and their intelligence agencies have a long and rather lacklustre, bipartisan history of outright, blatant, in your face lies to suit their political purposes. This current Russiagate circus, with its evidence free accusations against the sitting US president of treasonous collusion with the RF, is no less ludicrous than trying to link Saddam with Osama and 911.

But if propaganda lies continue to influence US domestic public opinion then they'll just keep on lying.

Interesting to see the latest Harvard-Harris polling, although be advised the Hill journalist seems to be cherry picking the pro-Trump stats so the picture is not as clear cut as the title implies. It would seem however that the tide of public opinion is turning - Voters grow weary of Russia probes.

Raw PDF data is here, fascinating reading!
 

[Martin Gisser]

This is literally the same MO for the Iraqi WMD, remember those aluminium tubes? Ties to Al Qaeda? Powell's degrading show and tell to the UN?

No! (Republican propaganda playbook. Sorry.)

There's quite a difference between what comes from professionals (the real spies) and what from their politically appointed bosses. Like:  "Powell's degrading show and tell to the UN" was degrading Powell, not his professionals - whom he forced to help produce his bullshit.

I remember German Aussenminister Joschka Fischer barely suppressing laughter in a CNN interview after Powell's ridiculous presentation. Fischer sure had the roaring laughter of his professional spies in ear, perhaps ex East Germans knowing Red Army equipment...

[sidd]

Only Republicans lie ? News to me. Just of the top of my head ...

"Banks and lenders must be held accountable for ending the practices that got us into this crisis in the first place." Barack Obama, Feb 18th 2009.

"Nobody is listening to your telephone calls," President Barack Obama said Friday ...

On March 12, 2013, during a United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing, Senator Ron Wyden quoted NSA director Keith B. Alexander’s keynote speech at the 2012 DEF CON. Alexander had stated that “Our job is foreign intelligence” and that “those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false.... From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense.” Wyden then asked Clapper, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” He responded, “No, sir.” Wyden asked “It does not?” and Clapper said, “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.”[

sidd

[Martin Gisser]

That's why all the fuss (or is it fuzz?) with FISA warrants.

[Buddy]

How much longer can Donnie's attorney's keep him from an interview with a journalist....as opposed to someone from FOX News tossing Donnie softball's?

What is Donnie hiding?  Hmmmmmmmmm?

[sidd]

Re: not just FISA

look at section 702, exec order 12333 and this latest titbit from a few days ago

"With a single warrant, US feds listened in on 3.3 million phone calls"

http://www.orrazz.com/2017/07/with-single-warrant-us-feds-listened-in.html

sidd

[TerryM]

sidd


You just don't get it.
In today's Washington 3.5 million = 0, if 0 is what our guy had promised.


Terry

[Martin Gisser]

Depends on what "listened in" means. I bet the Europeans have listened in on more, as the U.S. spy system is actually something more professional than the rest of the developed world...

WTF?    I remember the Internets during 9/11 2001. Had a net DaDaist sociologist (bioregionalist) from Wisconsin as WWW DaDa buddy. We enjoyed exchanging Emails with the weirdest of keywords... and found some getting delayed somewhere around South Korea. Oh suspense! Was it an algorithm or some 007 hunting Osama? (My quick PentiumII had a Linux server at ISDN running and I could see the google bots clicking around the fractal selfgenerations of my Net DaDa honeypot, actually audible from the workings of my 40MB hard disk. And grep and filter all the protocols and email headers... Traffic was manageable these days...)

Ever since I'm not very paranoid of being wiretapped. The big data stuff looks more scary, esp. spontaneous fulgurations like the Mazedonian Kids 2016 (but less scary, intentional tinkerers like Cambridge Analytica...)

Whatever, first, good night!

Edit: also edited my reply to Zeug a little. So paradigmatic!

[AbruptSLR]

As the GOP controls the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the federal government, they could change the FISA; however, as multiple FISA warrants have already been issued in the Russiagate investigation, the FBI must have 'probable cause' that the targets of the investigation are working for a foreign power:

https://www.cfr.org/report/case-reforming-section-702-us-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-law

Extract: “For the government to obtain an order to intercept domestic communications under FISA, it must demonstrate probable causethat the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, and that each of the facilities to be placed under surveillance is likely to be used by the target.”

[sidd]

Probable cause ? that's so twentieth century. Look up "RAS" (Reasonable Articulable Suspicion) in connection with NSA/FBI wiretaps, or in other words, just about anything the person making the query wants to put in that field. In fact, sometimes that field has been left blank.

I do wish people would actually read the Snowden and Wikileaks corpus carefully. It's much worse than many here seem to believe.

1) If you dont use encryption, you are naked, almost anyone with a modicum of skill can eavesdrop.
2) If you do use encryption, you are still subject to traffic analysis, and all encrypted traffic is retained indefinitely.
3) If you use an anonymizer like Tor, I2P or one of the rest you immediately move onto the list of people who are using them.

You have to jump thru a bunch of hoops to really hide. Most don't know how. Many don't care, until their emails are dumped and/or they get doxed. But the point is that such apparatus should never have been built in the first place. I seem to recall the Peace President promising to dismantle the system ...

sidd

[sidd]

"Depends on what "listened in" means.:

Just like "Depends on what "torture" means"

[To expand: from the  link i posted:

"US authorities intercepted and recorded millions of phone calls last year ..."

I'd say that's close enuf lexically to "listened in" ]

And as for the professionalism of the US intelligence agencies, they are a bunch of thugs, as is clear from various US Government reports over the years. Preceding the horrific Senate torture report, the Church committee is a useful source, and it is clear the practises detailed in Church never really stopped, and came roaring back in the last couple decades.

The Europeans never intercepted and listened on the scale of the US. Look up the Echelon reports to the EU parliament in the 90s.

sidd

[AbruptSLR]

Probable cause ? that's so twentieth century. Look up "RAS" (Reasonable Articulable Suspicion) in connection with NSA/FBI wiretaps, or in other words, just about anything the person making the query wants to put in that field. In fact, sometimes that field has been left blank.

I do wish people would actually read the Snowden and Wikileaks corpus carefully. It's much worse than many here seem to believe.

1) If you dont use encryption, you are naked, almost anyone with a modicum of skill can eavesdrop.
2) If you do use encryption, you are still subject to traffic analysis, and all encrypted traffic is retained indefinitely.
3) If you use an anonymizer like Tor, I2P or one of the rest you immediately move onto the list of people who are using them.

You have to jump thru a bunch of hoops to really hide. Most don't know how. Many don't care, until their emails are dumped and/or they get doxed. But the point is that such apparatus should never have been built in the first place. I seem to recall the Peace President promising to dismantle the system ...

sidd

sidd,

You need to stop living in the past and tell us what the GOP is going to do about your concerns, as they are the ones who have their hands on the levers of power at the moment.

Best,
ASLR

[sidd]

Re: living in the past

1) Wait, what ? I am concerned with current, ongoing surveillance in my quoted post, not something in the       past.

2) I fully expect the GOP to attempt to expand surveillance (don't get me wrong, the democrats would do the same, just as Obama did, but with a furrowed brow, and sighs of concern.)

3) To drag this conversation back to Russiagate, Snowden said some time ago that if there were evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia, the NSA would know about it.

sidd

[Zeug Gezeugt]

No! (Republican propaganda playbook. Sorry.)

Hi Martin,

I'm not sure what you intended with this "No!" ... are you suggesting that US Democrats don't use propaganda techniques and are the party of Truth therefore Russiagate must be true?

If so I'd suggest that you're being remarkably naive. As far as I can see there is very little difference between the US Red and Blue teams, especially when it comes to Bush 2's GWOT and its neoconservative foreign policy this last 16 years of constant global warfare. Obama was after all the longest serving war president in US history.

Trump was remarkable in this context as he promised to overturn the neocon quest for global full spectrum dominance by making Russia a partner rather than an adversary. The neocons jumped the sinking GOP ship when Trump trashed Jeb, and they publicly supported HRC for their next war president. Trump wins and now we have Russiagate to bring him back in line.

This Russiagate propaganda playbook is neoconservative which no longer means Republican as the war hawks have both Red and Blue on side.

[AbruptSLR]

3) To drag this conversation back to Russiagate, Snowden said some time ago that if there were evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia, the NSA would know about it.

sidd

Maybe the Trump controlled NSA is monitoring Schiff and not leaking about it:

From over ½-month ago:

Title: "Adam Schiff Drops A Bomb And Confirms There Is Evidence That Trump Colluded With Russia"

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/06/18/adam-schiff-drops-bombshell-confirms-evidence-trump-colluded-russia.html

Extract: "Rep. Schiff stated that he is not prepared to call it the kind of proof that could be taken to a jury, but it is the sort of evidence that merits deeper investigation. The problem for Trump is that the legal standards for collusion and obstruction of justice don’t apply to a political proceeding like impeachment.

Bill Clinton was impeached for much less than the legal standard in the House.

Schiff has gradually moved his description of the investigation to indicate that the committee is seeing evidence that Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia and that the President is obstructing justice. These are small statements that equal big developments. Time is not on the side of Donald Trump, and the more investigators dig, the more they appear to be uncovering about Trump and Russia."


From over a month ago:

Title: "Schiff: "There Is Evidence Of Collusion"; "Not Prepared To Make Conclusions About Strength Of Evidence""

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/24/schiff_there_is_evidence_of_collusion_not_prepared_to_make_conclusions_about_strength_of_evidence.html#!

Extract: "Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Cali.), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, told Charlie Rose that, yes, "there is evidence of collusion" between Russia and the Trump presidential campaign. Schiff said, "we need to follow the evidence wherever it leads," and then said he is "not prepared to make any conclusions about the strength of the evidence."

"But is it circumstantial evidence?" Rose asked the Congressman.

"From my point of view, it is not purely circumstantial," the Congressman from California said.

Schiff claimed that not everyone involved in the investigation, including his counterparts in the Senate Intelligence Committee, has "seen the same evidence."

"They get a different level of evidence," he said of the Senate Intel Committee."

From over three months ago:

Title: "Rep. Adam Schiff: ‘Circumstantial Evidence’ Indicates Trump Camp, Russia Collusion"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-camp-russian-collution_us_58cf1551e4b0ec9d29dcf167

[Zeug Gezeugt]

Maybe the Trump controlled NSA is monitoring Schiff and not leaking about it:

Or maybe they're all just blowing hot air? You must admit it remains a possibility yes?

That would explain the lack of actual evidence so far, and the constant claims that there's actual evidence but we can't see it yet but 'trust us', along with the constant interpretation of that potential evidence as if it already proves treasonous collusion, Russian election interference and so on. And they just keep hammering the point over and over.

The end result being people in public forums like this start to repeat all the hot air as if it's already proven to be true. So it becomes a 'fact' that the Russians won the US presidential election for Trump, that Trump colluded with evil Putin to do so, and that he has been fighting the US political and intelligence elites, including some of his Republican 'Never Trump' colleagues, to keep these 'facts' hidden! Thus, Trump should be impeached for treason and obstruction of justice asap!

Either the evidence is 'there' and yet to be released - although I'd suggest sooner would be better than later given the public seems to be losing interest - or it's all just hot air, an impeachment witch hunt to destroy the first term of a non-establishment approved but unfortunately democratically elected US president.

Hot air regime change if you like.

[TerryM]

Zeug
Very well put.
Ramen!

[Archimid]

The proof is in the Putin. So far Trump is maneuvering the US towards isolation. Trump has kissed up to Putin in a manner that defies belief. Trump has fought Obama sanctions and congressional  sanctions for the Russian meddling. Trump has publicly declare admiration for Putin at every chance he gets. Trump even publicly and proudly declared that he hoped the Russians hacked the elections.

Everything indicates that Trump has been closely coordinating with Russia for some form of 21st century cooperation. So far the only thing I have seen the US potentially gain is access to oil for Exxon. The US, through Trump is giving up it's place in the world, is pushing our allies away and closing up to the rest of the world. Oh, I nearly forgot, and is letting Russia have millions of miles of new coasts through rabid climate change denial.


Does that sounds like a good deal for the US? Of course not, but I bet it is a fantastic deal for Trump. Plenty of evidence indicates that Trump is going to receiving serious emoluments for destroying the US, and through climate change, the world.


I seriously think that these two madmen either severely underestimate how climate change will affect them personally or they know what's coming.

[Buddy]

Donnie is definitely losing it now.  Not only is he a sociopath....he is a sociopath that is also starting to show signs of dimentia.

This is going to be interesting to see how both Pence and Trump will be removed from office.  I'm sure there are conversations as to batting order right now in the FBI/DOJ.  And maybe Donnie's dimentia will save him face.

This is getting more bazaar by the minute.... Donnie's handlers are going to do their best to continue to keep him away from interviews other than friendly TASS (FOX).

[Neven]

The proof is in the Putin.

 

That one is very funny, on multiple levels.

[Archimid]

 

[AbruptSLR]

Or maybe they're all just blowing hot air? You must admit it remains a possibility yes?

People are assumed innocent until proven guilty.  We will just have to be patient until Mueller does his job and presents his evidence in a court of law, and/or closes down his investigation.

[AbruptSLR]

I am not sure how strong the evidence is in the linked Palmer Report article, but if true then Trump is in serious trouble:

"Report: the press is sitting on Trump-Russia collusion bombshell in coordination with Robert Mueller’s probe"

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/report-press-trump-russia-collusion-bombshell-robert-mueller-probe/3724/

Extract: "“Tea Pain can confirm from multiple sources that our press has damning intercepts that will expose Trump. The press outlets are working with Mueller’s investigation, holding these articles so as not to compromise their active sources. Rest assured there is evidence of Trump wrongdoin’ and that it will cripple Trump’s presidency. This goes deep, friends. It’s no longer a matter of if, but when. Tea Pain is confident Mueller’s team will ferret out all the weasels and justice will reign! This also explains why Trump’s jumpier than a bobcat at a county fair. He knows it’s there, thus his elevated anti-media attacks.”"

[AbruptSLR]

Drip drip drip:

"Don't Look Now, but Investigators Are Exploring if Russia Colluded with Pro-Trump Sites During the Election"

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/dont-look-now-investigators-are-exploring-if-russia-colluded-pro-trump-sites

Extract: "Investigators are looking into whether Trump supporters and far-right websites coordinated with Moscow over the release of fake news, including stories implicating Clinton in murder or paedophilia, or paid to boost those stories on Facebook."

[TerryM]

Drip drip drip:

"Don't Look Now, but Investigators Are Exploring if Russia Colluded with Pro-Trump Sites During the Election"

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/dont-look-now-investigators-are-exploring-if-russia-colluded-pro-trump-sites

Extract: "Investigators are looking into whether Trump supporters and far-right websites coordinated with Moscow over the release of fake news, including stories implicating Clinton in murder or paedophilia, or paid to boost those stories on Facebook."

Why if these allegations should prove true it would be like Time magazine photo shopping Hitler's mustache onto Putin's lip, like the USA magazine depicting Putin as a vampire, or akin to Newsweek's cover redoing Putin as the Terminator.
When we accuse the Russian's of doing evil deeds, it might be worthwhile to see if we aren't just projecting what we've been doing.


Terry

[SteveMDFP]

Drip drip drip:

"Don't Look Now, but Investigators Are Exploring if Russia Colluded with Pro-Trump Sites During the Election"

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/dont-look-now-investigators-are-exploring-if-russia-colluded-pro-trump-sites

Extract: "Investigators are looking into whether Trump supporters and far-right websites coordinated with Moscow over the release of fake news, including stories implicating Clinton in murder or paedophilia, or paid to boost those stories on Facebook."

Why if these allegations should prove true it would be like Time magazine photo shopping Hitler's mustache onto Putin's lip, like the USA magazine depicting Putin as a vampire, or akin to Newsweek's cover redoing Putin as the Terminator.
When we accuse the Russian's of doing evil deeds, it might be worthwhile to see if we aren't just projecting what we've been doing.


Terry

Yes, of course the CIA has done comparable meddling in other elections around the world, probably worse.  The point *isn't* that Putin is some evil monster who must be eliminated.  The real point is that Trump and company are treasonous evil monsters who must be removed from power and criminally tried.

I'm not worried that this would propel Pence to power and re-election.  He's tarred with the same brush by association, even if his own actions were as pure as the driven snow (which I really doubt). 

Remember Ford's administration after Nixon?  He was plainly innocent of any wrongdoing, but he was still a pretty ineffective President.  He didn't win his re-election bid, Carter won.

[Zeug Gezeugt]

Everything indicates that Trump has been closely coordinating with Russia for some form of 21st century cooperation. So far the only thing I have seen the US potentially gain is access to oil for Exxon. The US, through Trump is giving up it's place in the world, is pushing our allies away and closing up to the rest of the world.

Isolationism would be unfortunate although probably impossible in this globalised world. However, there is much to gain for US citizens if their ruling elites were to give up on the Pax Americana and the use of unrestrained planetary-wide violence which has ruined their domestic main street economy and destroyed their nation's international image as the 'good guy' these last 16 years:

Cost Of War
 
Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In US War And Occupation Of Iraq - 1,455,590

Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) In America's War On Iraq - 4,801

Number Of  International Occupation Force Troops Slaughtered In Afghanistan - 3,430

Total Cost of Wars Since 2001 - $1,770,716,541,941     

Source: http://www.costofwar.com/

[Neven]

I am not sure how strong the evidence is in the linked Palmer Report article, but if true then Trump is in serious trouble:

"Report: the press is sitting on Trump-Russia collusion bombshell in coordination with Robert Mueller’s probe"

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/report-press-trump-russia-collusion-bombshell-robert-mueller-probe/3724/

Extract: "“Tea Pain can confirm from multiple sources that our press has damning intercepts that will expose Trump. The press outlets are working with Mueller’s investigation, holding these articles so as not to compromise their active sources. Rest assured there is evidence of Trump wrongdoin’ and that it will cripple Trump’s presidency. This goes deep, friends. It’s no longer a matter of if, but when. Tea Pain is confident Mueller’s team will ferret out all the weasels and justice will reign! This also explains why Trump’s jumpier than a bobcat at a county fair. He knows it’s there, thus his elevated anti-media attacks.”"

That writing style should be a first indication of reliability and credibility. That doesn't mean wishful thinking is never aligned with how reality plays out.

[Archimid]

Zeug if you think for a split second that Trump's brand of isolationism will lead to less wars, you haven't been paying attention. Trump requested a 10% military budget increase and is looking for a fight. Anyone will do. He needs more wars, more imaginary monsters to scare the people so he can offer them protection.

Trumps brand of isolation is mainly political (away from Europe and democracy and towards kleptocratic governments) and economical (trade wars).


About the cost of war. IMHO the Afganistan war was justified and backed by the whole world. Getting Bin Laden had to be done and the Taliban wasn't having it. The US had to act. That Bin Laden was eventually caught in Pakistan by Obama without a war, is a whole different topic.

 The Iraq war was a great act of aggression by the United States, a war fought under false premises, without global agreement. After seeing the little bit I saw of it I'm convinced that the Iraq war was a crime against humanity. People like Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld should be tried for those crimes. The world is still dealing with the disastrous consequences of that war.

[AbruptSLR]

That writing style should be a first indication of reliability and credibility. That doesn't mean wishful thinking is never aligned with how reality plays out.

Roman wasn't built in a day, and Team Trump should be very nervous that Team Mueller is breathing down its collective neck:


“Ongoing Mueller probe could draw focus to Russian crime operations”


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/ongoing-mueller-probe-draw-focus-russian-crime-operations/


Extract: “An ongoing special counsel investigation is drawing attention to Russian efforts to meddle in democratic processes, the type of skullduggery that in the past has relied on hired hackers and outside criminals. It’s not clear how much the investigation by former FBI Director Robert Mueller will center on the criminal underbelly of Moscow, but he’s already picked some lawyers with experience fighting organized crime. And as the team looks for any financial entanglements of Trump associates and relationships with Russian officials, its focus could land again on the intertwining of Russia’s criminal operatives and its intelligence services.”

[TerryM]

Remember Ford's administration after Nixon?  He was plainly innocent of any wrongdoing, but he was still a pretty ineffective President.  He didn't win his re-election bid, Carter won.

I do remember Ford. He was moderately popular until he pardoned Nixon. He had no chance of winning any election after that. He was demonstrably guilty of pardoning a guilty man that the public wanted to prosecute.


Terry

[Martin Gisser]

My popcorn is getting stale... 4th July gone, but no Trump fireworks?

I am not sure how strong the evidence is in the linked Palmer Report article, but if true then Trump is in serious trouble:

"Report: the press is sitting on Trump-Russia collusion bombshell in coordination with Robert Mueller’s probe"

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/report-press-trump-russia-collusion-bombshell-robert-mueller-probe/3724/

Extract: "“Tea Pain can confirm from multiple sources that our press has damning intercepts that will expose Trump. The press outlets are working with Mueller’s investigation, holding these articles so as not to compromise their active sources. Rest assured there is evidence of Trump wrongdoin’ and that it will cripple Trump’s presidency. This goes deep, friends. It’s no longer a matter of if, but when. Tea Pain is confident Mueller’s team will ferret out all the weasels and justice will reign! This also explains why Trump’s jumpier than a bobcat at a county fair. He knows it’s there, thus his elevated anti-media attacks.”"

That writing style should be a first indication of reliability and credibility. That doesn't mean wishful thinking is never aligned with how reality plays out.

3 more tweets on this:
Louise Mensch https://mobile.twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/882576536272068608

Further to @TrueFactsStated report on CNN, my own sources confirm that CNN has transcripts of Kushner and Bannon; WaPo has better evidence

Claude Taylor https://mobile.twitter.com/TrueFactsStated/status/882563773969702912

I have a series of quotes from Senior CNN Executives candidly describing their Network, relationship with WH and what they know..follows

Dena Grayson https://mobile.twitter.com/DrDenaGrayson/status/882761407623815168

My source says another MSM outlet has tapes, along w/CNN & WaPo, as reported by @TrueFactsStated & @LouiseMensch‼️

[Buddy]

The hounds are now on the chase.....and they will not be denied.   As the onion continues to be peeled back.....Donnie is continuing to be revealed.

He just can't get away from RussiaGate and everything he and his administration did.  In Watergate....there were a couple people early on that hurried along the downfall of Nixon:  John Dean, Nixon's White House counsel....and Alexander Butterfield, assistant chief of staff during the first couple of years of Nixons FIRST term....but someone who was not even remotely involved in the coverup, and was working at the FAA during and after the Watergate debacle....but was one of a very few people who even knew that Nixon had a recording system.

I happen to believe it is LIKELY that Donnie DID record some of his conversations.  It is likely that those recordings are long gone....but it is likely that one or more people DO know that there were some recordings.  In coming weeks and months we may find out more about recorded conversations.

In the meantime....I look for Donnie to be Donnie:  A man who knows he is in trouble....but looking for a way out of the mess he created, by any means possible.  And I look for more "havoc" to be created by Donnie....partly because that is how Donnie operates, and partly as a smokescreen to push conversation away from RussiaGate.

We have some interesting and historic months ahead of us.  Soak it in.....and keep your eyes and your mind wide open.