• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

RussiaGate

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,218
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Wait, are you saying that Putin is an innocent victim of a conspiracy by the State Department?
I m saying they are both worthy of each other.

That's not what it sounded like you were saying at all.

It sounded like you were saying that that mean ol' Hilary was running a conspiracy against Putin through the State Department.

This is an interesting twist on the usual "let's talk about Hilary instead" thing.

Do you have any links to provide proving this Hilary conspiracy against Putin?

It's not her conspiracy. It's neocon conspiracy. She is neocon though.
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Wait, are you saying that Putin is an innocent victim of a conspiracy by the State Department?
I m saying they are both worthy of each other.

That's not what it sounded like you were saying at all.

It sounded like you were saying that that mean ol' Hilary was running a conspiracy against Putin through the State Department.

This is an interesting twist on the usual "let's talk about Hilary instead" thing.

Do you have any links to provide proving this Hilary conspiracy against Putin?

It wasn't a conspiracy.. it was her in the state department calling for senate to levy sanctions on Russia, that were levied, which the Russians obviously were unhappy at her about. Motive for revenge against her personally.

If Trump was outspoken about sanctioning Russia for this activity or that, and Clinton was all "Putin is a great guy", then Russia would have fucked Trump instead of Clinton... and our houses filled with repugnants would have impeached her the second they found out.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,675
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Just in case you guys forgot, Jill Stein also has ties to Russia and was probably a witting or unwitting Russian operative. Now she's refusing to turn over Russia-related documents.

https://theintercept.com/2018/04/26/russia-jill-stein-senate-intelligence/

I weakly agree with Stein/Green Party on this section:
For instance, the committee asked for all communications between the campaign and “Russian media organizations, their employees, or associates” between February 6, 2015, and the present.

Stein’s campaign is willingly providing these.

The committee also asked for communications from the “campaign’s policy discussions regarding Russia” during the same time frame.

Verheyden-Hilliard wrote that the campaign will decline to produce these materials “on the basis of constitutional privilege arising from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” She also wrote that internal campaign communications of this nature are “not pertinent to the subject of Russian interference” in the elections.

I don't know about this section:
The request also calls for “all communications with Russian persons, or representatives of Russian government, media, or business interests, including but not limited to any communications, discussions, or offers related to opposition research, from February 6, 2015 to the present.”

Stein’s campaign told The Intercept that they have already provided to the committee all communications with people affiliated with the Russian government and Russian media, but not with all people of Russian descent.

In the view of the Stein campaign, this is a request that unfairly puts all people of Russian descent under suspicion.

The campaign is adamant that it will “not be disclosing names of persons with whom they have ever communicated, including American political supporters, targeted because they happen to be Russian immigrants or of Russian descent. We reiterate here that the responding parties will not participate in a hunt for identification of persons based on nationality or descent.”

I sort-of think it would be best for the committee to ask about communications with specific people, if they're Americans. If Russian govt officials, she claims to have already given all that. So maybe Mueller's investigation needs to come up with a list of persons of interest who are reasonably suspicious, even if not Russian govt officials, such as even Manafort...anyone in the list of 100 or whatever persons and ask for communications with those persons.
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
That's not what it sounded like you were saying at all.

It sounded like you were saying that that mean ol' Hilary was running a conspiracy against Putin through the State Department.

This is an interesting twist on the usual "let's talk about Hilary instead" thing.

Do you have any links to provide proving this Hilary conspiracy against Putin?

It wasn't a conspiracy.. it was her in the state department calling for senate to levy sanctions on Russia, that were levied, which the Russians obviously were unhappy at her about. Motive for revenge against her personally.

If Trump was outspoken about sanctioning Russia for this activity or that, and Clinton was all "Putin is a great guy", then Russia would have fucked Trump instead of Clinton... and our houses filled with repugnants would have impeached her the second they found out.

Yes, she and many other Americans wanted sanctions and that's why Putin is angry, but the conspiracy theory in question is about Hilary Clinton funding opposition politicians in Russia. That's a little different.
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
I weakly agree with Stein/Green Party on this section:


I don't know about this section:
The request also calls for “all communications with Russian persons, or representatives of Russian government, media, or business interests, including but not limited to any communications, discussions, or offers related to opposition research, from February 6, 2015 to the present.”

Stein’s campaign told The Intercept that they have already provided to the committee all communications with people affiliated with the Russian government and Russian media, but not with all people of Russian descent.

In the view of the Stein campaign, this is a request that unfairly puts all people of Russian descent under suspicion.

The campaign is adamant that it will “not be disclosing names of persons with whom they have ever communicated, including American political supporters, targeted because they happen to be Russian immigrants or of Russian descent. We reiterate here that the responding parties will not participate in a hunt for identification of persons based on nationality or descent.”

I sort-of think it would be best for the committee to ask about communications with specific people, if they're Americans. If Russian govt officials, she claims to have already given all that. So maybe Mueller's investigation needs to come up with a list of persons of interest who are reasonably suspicious, even if not Russian govt officials, such as even Manafort...anyone in the list of 100 or whatever persons and ask for communications with those persons.

This isn't Mueller requesting the documents. If he requested documents in a way that was unconstitutional, wouldn't the courts stop him?
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,218
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
That's not what it sounded like you were saying at all.

It sounded like you were saying that that mean ol' Hilary was running a conspiracy against Putin through the State Department.

This is an interesting twist on the usual "let's talk about Hilary instead" thing.

Do you have any links to provide proving this Hilary conspiracy against Putin?

It wasn't a conspiracy.. it was her in the state department calling for senate to levy sanctions on Russia, that were levied, which the Russians obviously were unhappy at her about. Motive for revenge against her personally.

If Trump was outspoken about sanctioning Russia for this activity or that, and Clinton was all "Putin is a great guy", then Russia would have fucked Trump instead of Clinton... and our houses filled with repugnants would have impeached her the second they found out.

Yes, she and many other Americans wanted sanctions and that's why Putin is angry, but the conspiracy theory in question is about Hilary Clinton funding opposition politicians in Russia. That's a little different.
You have any doubts that US funds or rather funded opposition in Russia?
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,957
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Yes, she and many other Americans wanted sanctions and that's why Putin is angry, but the conspiracy theory in question is about Hilary Clinton funding opposition politicians in Russia. That's a little different.
You have any doubts that US funds or rather funded opposition in Russia?

It is important to note that barbos is working from the position that Putin has articulated since his narrow (some say fraudulent) election victory in 2012. He has always maintained that the US State Department, which was run by Hillary Clinton at the time, "funded" his opposition. In English, however, "funded" implies full financial support rather than just paying into a fund for some NGOs that promoted democracy--a linguistic distinction that is probably lost on barbos. Why is this an important point for Putin? Well, he had gone through a year of very tough public protests, and he needs a narrative to explain why he didn't win by a huge margin. See Sputnik's Putin: US Always Interfered in Russian Elections. Putin considered the NGOs that received some support from the US to be part of his political opposition, since they promote democratic principles such as fair elections.

Of course, the Russian government is allowed to fund nonpartisan NGOs in the US, and its Sputnik news outlet is allowed to publish Russia's positions in the US, even though the US Voice of America is blocked in Russia. Russian officials can attend political rallies in the US, and they even attended official Republican Party events during our 2016 campaign. However, foreigners are prohibited from actually giving material aid to US political parties or engaging in campaign strategy activities. Unlike Russia, the US has never attempted to flood Russia with fake news stories or hacked emails that were intended to change the outcome of an election.

See the Washington Post article Did the United States interfere in Russian elections?
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,218
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Yes, she and many other Americans wanted sanctions and that's why Putin is angry, but the conspiracy theory in question is about Hilary Clinton funding opposition politicians in Russia. That's a little different.
You have any doubts that US funds or rather funded opposition in Russia?

It is important to note that barbos is working from the position that Putin has articulated since his narrow (some say fraudulent) election victory in 2012. He has always maintained that the US State Department, which was run by Hillary Clinton at the time, "funded" his opposition. In English, however, "funded" implies full financial support rather than just paying into a fund for some NGOs that promoted democracy--a linguistic distinction that is probably lost on barbos. Why is this an important point for Putin? Well, he had gone through a year of very tough public protests, and he needs a narrative to explain why he didn't win by a huge margin. See Sputnik's Putin: US Always Interfered in Russian Elections. Putin considered the NGOs that received some support from the US to be part of his political opposition, since they promote democratic principles such as fair elections.

Of course, the Russian government is allowed to fund nonpartisan NGOs in the US, and its Sputnik news outlet is allowed to publish Russia's positions in the US, even though the US Voice of America is blocked in Russia. Russian officials can attend political rallies in the US, and they even attended official Republican Party events during our 2016 campaign. However, foreigners are prohibited from actually giving material aid to US political parties or engaging in campaign strategy activities. Unlike Russia, the US has never attempted to flood Russia with fake news stories or hacked emails that were intended to change the outcome of an election.

See the Washington Post article Did the United States interfere in Russian elections?

Here you go again with your ridiculous theories. I did not know that 63% of votes constituted a narrow margin and needed an explanation on the part of Putin. If that's the case then surely Hillary needs an explanation too for her narrow defeat? right? And russian government hackers come very handy at that, right?
The fact is, Putin and Hillary hate each other. I don't know what started it, but that's irrelevant. State Department has been trying to undermine Putin and hence Russia as whole for the most of his tenure, even during Bush who had decent relation with Putin.
So there were two aspects here, neocons who hate Russia and Hillary (neocon as well) extra hates Putin.
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
Yes, she and many other Americans wanted sanctions and that's why Putin is angry, but the conspiracy theory in question is about Hilary Clinton funding opposition politicians in Russia. That's a little different.
You have any doubts that US funds or rather funded opposition in Russia?

I doubt every fact. If you want to make a claim, you'll have to provide evidence for the claim.

- - - Updated - - -

It is important to note that barbos is working from the position that Putin has articulated since his narrow (some say fraudulent) election victory in 2012. He has always maintained that the US State Department, which was run by Hillary Clinton at the time, "funded" his opposition. In English, however, "funded" implies full financial support rather than just paying into a fund for some NGOs that promoted democracy--a linguistic distinction that is probably lost on barbos. Why is this an important point for Putin? Well, he had gone through a year of very tough public protests, and he needs a narrative to explain why he didn't win by a huge margin. See Sputnik's Putin: US Always Interfered in Russian Elections. Putin considered the NGOs that received some support from the US to be part of his political opposition, since they promote democratic principles such as fair elections.

Of course, the Russian government is allowed to fund nonpartisan NGOs in the US, and its Sputnik news outlet is allowed to publish Russia's positions in the US, even though the US Voice of America is blocked in Russia. Russian officials can attend political rallies in the US, and they even attended official Republican Party events during our 2016 campaign. However, foreigners are prohibited from actually giving material aid to US political parties or engaging in campaign strategy activities. Unlike Russia, the US has never attempted to flood Russia with fake news stories or hacked emails that were intended to change the outcome of an election.

See the Washington Post article Did the United States interfere in Russian elections?

Here you go again with your ridiculous theories. I did not know that 63% of votes constituted a narrow margin and needed an explanation on the part of Putin. If that's the case then surely Hillary needs an explanation too for her narrow defeat? right? And russian government hackers come very handy at that, right?
The fact is, Putin and Hillary hate each other. I don't know what started it, but that's irrelevant. State Department has been trying to undermine Putin and hence Russia as whole for the most of his tenure, even during Bush who had decent relation with Putin.
So there were two aspects here, neocons who hate Russia and Hillary (neocon as well) extra hates Putin.

You never provided proof of your conspiracy theory, while he backed up his claims with evidence.

Arguing about what constitutes a "narrow" victory isn't going to change any of that, and I'm not sure why you thought it would.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,218
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I doubt every fact. If you want to make a claim, you'll have to provide evidence for the claim.

- - - Updated - - -

It is important to note that barbos is working from the position that Putin has articulated since his narrow (some say fraudulent) election victory in 2012. He has always maintained that the US State Department, which was run by Hillary Clinton at the time, "funded" his opposition. In English, however, "funded" implies full financial support rather than just paying into a fund for some NGOs that promoted democracy--a linguistic distinction that is probably lost on barbos. Why is this an important point for Putin? Well, he had gone through a year of very tough public protests, and he needs a narrative to explain why he didn't win by a huge margin. See Sputnik's Putin: US Always Interfered in Russian Elections. Putin considered the NGOs that received some support from the US to be part of his political opposition, since they promote democratic principles such as fair elections.

Of course, the Russian government is allowed to fund nonpartisan NGOs in the US, and its Sputnik news outlet is allowed to publish Russia's positions in the US, even though the US Voice of America is blocked in Russia. Russian officials can attend political rallies in the US, and they even attended official Republican Party events during our 2016 campaign. However, foreigners are prohibited from actually giving material aid to US political parties or engaging in campaign strategy activities. Unlike Russia, the US has never attempted to flood Russia with fake news stories or hacked emails that were intended to change the outcome of an election.

See the Washington Post article Did the United States interfere in Russian elections?

Here you go again with your ridiculous theories. I did not know that 63% of votes constituted a narrow margin and needed an explanation on the part of Putin. If that's the case then surely Hillary needs an explanation too for her narrow defeat? right? And russian government hackers come very handy at that, right?
The fact is, Putin and Hillary hate each other. I don't know what started it, but that's irrelevant. State Department has been trying to undermine Putin and hence Russia as whole for the most of his tenure, even during Bush who had decent relation with Putin.
So there were two aspects here, neocons who hate Russia and Hillary (neocon as well) extra hates Putin.

You never provided proof of your conspiracy theory, while he backed up his claims with evidence.
I don't see him providing any evidence. As for me, I remember starting a thread about how one of the member of the opposition was dropping (privately) the Clinton's name. It's way more evidence than Mueller have on Trump&Co
Arguing about what constitutes a "narrow" victory isn't going to change any of that, and I'm not sure why you thought it would.
I know, you honestly believe your shit. Does not make it reality though.
 
Last edited:

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,957
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
It is important to note that barbos is working from the position that Putin has articulated since his narrow (some say fraudulent) election victory in 2012. He has always maintained that the US State Department, which was run by Hillary Clinton at the time, "funded" his opposition. In English, however, "funded" implies full financial support rather than just paying into a fund for some NGOs that promoted democracy--a linguistic distinction that is probably lost on barbos. Why is this an important point for Putin? Well, he had gone through a year of very tough public protests, and he needs a narrative to explain why he didn't win by a huge margin. See Sputnik's Putin: US Always Interfered in Russian Elections. Putin considered the NGOs that received some support from the US to be part of his political opposition, since they promote democratic principles such as fair elections.

Of course, the Russian government is allowed to fund nonpartisan NGOs in the US, and its Sputnik news outlet is allowed to publish Russia's positions in the US, even though the US Voice of America is blocked in Russia. Russian officials can attend political rallies in the US, and they even attended official Republican Party events during our 2016 campaign. However, foreigners are prohibited from actually giving material aid to US political parties or engaging in campaign strategy activities. Unlike Russia, the US has never attempted to flood Russia with fake news stories or hacked emails that were intended to change the outcome of an election.

See the Washington Post article Did the United States interfere in Russian elections?

Here you go again with your ridiculous theories. I did not know that 63% of votes constituted a narrow margin and needed an explanation on the part of Putin. If that's the case then surely Hillary needs an explanation too for her narrow defeat? right? And russian government hackers come very handy at that, right?
Well, you are right that the official vote count was not narrow, but there were two major problems with that argument. The first was that most of his competitors were simply kept off the ballot on technicalities over qualifying petitions, so that voters did not really have any genuine alternative. The second was that about a third of the voting precincts reported irregularities, particularly so-called  carousel voting (карусели), a very popular vote-rigging method in Russia. (Carousel voting was also used to help get Yanukovych elected in Ukraine.) Putin is likely correct that he would have won anyway, since that was a foregone conclusion brought about by eliminating viable ballot competitors. It is no wonder that the Communist Party (his only remaining serious competitor) refused to accept the results of the election, and tens of thousands gathered in a protest rally on the Arbat several days after his election victory.

The fact is, Putin and Hillary hate each other. I don't know what started it, but that's irrelevant. State Department has been trying to undermine Putin and hence Russia as whole for the most of his tenure, even during Bush who had decent relation with Putin.
So there were two aspects here, neocons who hate Russia and Hillary (neocon as well) extra hates Putin.

That is not a "fact" but just a weak supposition on your part. Both Putin and Clinton are seasoned politicians, but Putin found it useful to scapegoat her for his embarrassing troubles and publicly exposed election manipulation. I have no reason to believe that she held anything like the kind of grudge against him that he held against her. In fact, his grudge is probably more related to the economic sanctions for Russia's invasion of Ukraine rather than US criticism of his election. US foreign policy under Obama did promote democratic reforms in former Communist countries, but there was nothing new or personal in that. Russia has been no less critical of the US, and, as I have already pointed out, it is free to contribute to NGOs and to promote its point of view in the US media. There is no reciprocity towards US behavior in Russia. I think that you are very well aware of this.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,218
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Well, you are right that the official vote count was not narrow, but there were two major problems with that argument. The first was that most of his competitors were simply kept off the ballot on technicalities over qualifying petitions, so that voters did not really have any genuine alternative. The second was that about a third of the voting precincts reported irregularities, particularly so-called  carousel voting (карусели), a very popular vote-rigging method in Russia. (Carousel voting was also used to help get Yanukovych elected in Ukraine.) Putin is likely correct that he would have won anyway, since that was a foregone conclusion brought about by eliminating viable ballot competitors. It is no wonder that the Communist Party (his only remaining serious competitor) refused to accept the results of the election, and tens of thousands gathered in a protest rally on the Arbat several days after his election victory
I think Carousel voting is an invented excuse of the losers (West). Arbat is not not whole country. It's a known fact that Moscow is against Putin.
The fact is, Putin and Hillary hate each other. I don't know what started it, but that's irrelevant. State Department has been trying to undermine Putin and hence Russia as whole for the most of his tenure, even during Bush who had decent relation with Putin.
So there were two aspects here, neocons who hate Russia and Hillary (neocon as well) extra hates Putin.

That is not a "fact" but just a weak supposition on your part. Both Putin and Clinton are seasoned politicians, but Putin found it useful to scapegoat her for his embarrassing troubles and publicly exposed election manipulation.
You and your suppositions against my facts. Yes, Putin hates Clinton for her baseless criticism and support of opposition.
I have no reason to believe that she held anything like the kind of grudge against him that he held against her. In fact, his grudge is probably more related to the economic sanctions for Russia's invasion of Ukraine rather than US criticism of his election.
It started long before that. Russia warned US against meddling in Ukraine/Georgia in spring of 2008, before Georgian war.
US foreign policy under Obama did promote democratic reforms in former Communist countries,
How is that consistent with Obama's famous "russian economy in tatters" speech?
but there was nothing new or personal in that.
Yes, It's a standard and meaningless propaganda.
Russia has been no less critical of the US, and, as I have already pointed out, it is free to contribute to NGOs and to promote its point of view in the US media. There is no reciprocity towards US behavior in Russia. I think that you are very well aware of this.
I understand in Russia you can still pay opposition but the government demands disclosure, same as in US. The mere fact of of being labeled as recipients of western money puts you at serious electoral disadvantage.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,218
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
There was extensive reporting, including video evidence, on carousel voting in Moscow and St. Petersburg. You don't have to believe what you don't want to believe, but Putin knew that he was unpopular in heavily populated areas. Here is just one BBC report from that period: Russian elections: Hunting the 'carousel' voters.
Can you verify these reports are 100% or even 10% accurate? In some cases people on the buses were workers from plants with working schedules which makes voting difficult. And even if these reports are true, scale of the fraud is limited, my understanding is that local authorities (not Putin directly) are behind all that. And again amount of fraud is most likely limited. Popularity of different parties and Putin himself is measured by a number of independent polling agencies and is consistent with election results. So fraud is limited.
 
Last edited:

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Attacking? Really?

Yes, really.

Stand by for the fallacy where he uses two different definitions of the same word in the same sentence to support a position ("just a theory", as an example of that fallacy).

Did he use a knife or a gun to attack you? neither? Therefore no attack... Legal definition of assault is... blah blah blah...

watch for it in 3....2.....1.....
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,884
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Attacking? Really?

Yes, really.

Stand by for the fallacy where he uses two different definitions of the same word in the same sentence to support a position ("just a theory", as an example of that fallacy).

Did he use a knife or a gun to attack you? neither? Therefore no attack... Legal definition of assault is... blah blah blah...

watch for it in 3....2.....1.....

Russia needs better apologists... wonder if they'd offer me a job.
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist

This bit was particularly funny:

Mr. Trump’s new lawyer in the investigation and his longtime confidant, Rudolph W. Giuliani, met with Mr. Mueller last week and said he was trying to determine whether the special counsel and his staff were going to be “truly objective.”

Giuliani—with Trump’s cock up his ass—trying to determine whether or not Mueller is going to be “truly objective.” :rotfl:

So Giuliani’s entire strategy will be to try and paint Mueller’s staff as being partisan (since he can’t touch Mueller). That’s it.

Hey, poster, you should apply for a job on Giuliani’s staff. All they can manage is ad hominem too.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Which were leaked, no doubt by someone in the administration.
The general consensus is that Mueller had them leaked. These haven't been given to the Trump Admin yet.
What I see being said is that these aren't actually Mueller's questions. They're not in 'lawyerese,' for one thing.
They ARE written as if cribbed from Trump's lawyers' notes of the discussion with Mueller. These are the 'sort' of questions he seems to want to ask.
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
These are the questions written down by Trump's lead lawyer based on a meeting with Mueller, not something Mueller's team had. After taking this meeting, that lawyer immediately resigned. Given that some of the questions were regarding anyone approaching Flynn and offering him a pardon in exchange for his silence (ie - obstruction of justice), it may be that he resigned because he realized that there was a massive conflict of interest with his being both Trump's attorney and co-defendant.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,957
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
My understanding is that the questions were concocted by Jay Sekulow, not John Dowd, who is no longer Trump's lead attorney. Trump's side leaked them for its own purposes--probably in a scheme to give Trump cover for refusing to answer Mueller's questions. Trump could easily take the Fifth, and nobody would bat an eye. However, he needs some excuse to dangle in front of supporters. At this point, his legal team can supply Mueller with answers to their own questions and claim that Trump has nothing more to add. Then Trump can clam up--in theory. Whether or not Trump can control his Twitter thumbs is another matter.

In other Russiagate-related news, Donald Trump's administration is finding new ways to undermine Mueller's investigation: Ukraine, Seeking U.S. Missiles, Halted Cooperation With Mueller Investigation.
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
Isn't Sekulow the one who left? I've lost track of the revolving door. I might stream some earlier episodes on Netflix to remind myself of who the various characters are.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Isn't Sekulow the one who left? I've lost track of the revolving door. I might stream some earlier episodes on Netflix to remind myself of who the various characters are.
Sekulow is the TV face lawyer, he is still there. Sekulow is big in the fight against tyranny against the poor Christian majority in America. If there is a tree on Public Right-Of-Way that is being denied Xmas lights, he'll be there. That the Christian Right has adopted Trump is one of the more bizarre and morally bankrupt things done in the past several decades.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,132
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
This is Sekulow, with the glasses.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b5CjvqcoFg[/YOUTUBE]
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,884
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Isn't Sekulow the one who left? I've lost track of the revolving door. I might stream some earlier episodes on Netflix to remind myself of who the various characters are.
Sekulow is the TV face lawyer, he is still there. Sekulow is big in the fight against tyranny against the poor Christian majority in America. If there is a tree on Public Right-Of-Way that is being denied Xmas lights, he'll be there. That the Christian Right has adopted Trump is one of the more bizarre and morally bankrupt things done in the past several decades.

Meh. Tomas De Torquemada is laughing at you. These white nationalist lynch-happy misanthropes are total lightweights.
 

braces_for_impact

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
3,398
Location
Clearwater, FL.
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I'm certain THIS is all on the up and UP.

Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigators have questioned a Russian oligarch about hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments his company's US affiliate made to President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, after the election, according to a source familiar with the matter.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,675
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
here's another article on it:
Stormy Daniels' attorney claimed Tuesday that President Donald Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen received $500,000 from a company controlled by a Russian oligarch, deposited into an account for a company also used to pay off the adult film actress.

Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti, also detailed other transactions he said were suspicious, including deposits from drug giant Novartis, the state-run Korea Aerospace Industries, and AT&T — which confirmed it paid Cohen's company for "insights" into the Trump administration.

If true, Avenatti's claims, made in a dossier posted to Twitter, could add a new dimension to the federal investigation into Cohen. NBC News has reviewed financial documents that appear to support Avenatti’s account of the transactions.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...0k-russian-oligarch-viktor-vekselberg-n872481
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
I'm certain THIS is all on the up and UP.

Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigators have questioned a Russian oligarch about hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments his company's US affiliate made to President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, after the election, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Well, that didn't last long.

DctoW44V0AE11u1.jpg:large
 

braces_for_impact

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
3,398
Location
Clearwater, FL.
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I'm sure you're quick to wipe your hands of it. That doesn't seem to explain over 4 million in suspicious payments however...

Me, I'll watch and see where this goes. Stay tuned.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,675
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Trausti, what's your source and how is that group affiliated with a Russian counterpart called Renova Group? Do they somehow funnel money between one another? Renova somehow sounds like money launderers for Nova...
 

braces_for_impact

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
3,398
Location
Clearwater, FL.
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The Russian oligarchs cousin has dual Russia/USA citizenship. That's what "American owned" means. I find it interesting that this particular group decided to pay Cohen for the unique "real estate" insights he can offer from January to August? The whole think looks like pay to play and then some. I also find it interesting there's no mention of actual dollar amounts.

We just have SO MANY strange coincidences like this repeatedly since Trump hit the White House. Like every other time. There will be denials, then that be walked back and admitted to. Then it will be walked back some more and we'll be told it isn't technically illegal anyway.

This particular cluster fuck is just getting started. But like I said, I'm sure it's all above board. I'm sure any second now all relevant parties will be forthcoming with bank statements just to ease our overly suspicious minds.
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
I'm certain THIS is all on the up and UP.

Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigators have questioned a Russian oligarch about hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments his company's US affiliate made to President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, after the election, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Well, that didn't last long.

DctoW44V0AE11u1.jpg:large

In Watergate terms, that’s a very carefully worded non-denial denial.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,675
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
First this:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Trausti, what's your source and how is that group affiliated with a Russian counterpart called Renova Group? Do they somehow funnel money between one another? Renova somehow sounds like money launderers for Nova...

Then this:

Ad Homs don't explain a source, nor do they explain Renova group.

Also, the analogy is completely wrong. The Democrats did not poop in the hallway because Trump did. Now Mueller might be saying Trump pooped in the hallway because he was paid by the Russians. It isn't completely wrong-headed since he paid Russians to pee in a bed.

On the other hand, maybe someone should be looking into Russian financial side to see if they were paid by Twitler. Maybe that's more consistent.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,675
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Well, here is Columbus Nova's statement from a lawyer:
Columbus Nova is an investment management company solely owned and controlled by Americans. After the inauguration, the firm hired Michael Cohen as a business consultant regarding potential sources of capital and potential investments in real estate and other ventures. Reports today that Viktor Vekselberg used Columbus Nova as a conduit for payments to Michael Cohen are false. The claim that Viktor Vekselberg was involved in or provided any funding for Columbus Nova's engagement of Michael Cohen is patently untrue. Neither Viktor Vekselberg nor anyone else outside of Columbus Nova was involved in the decision to hire Cohen or provided funding for his engagement.

Additionally, contrary to recent reports, Columbus Nova LLC and Renova U.S. Management, LLC (operated under the Columbus Nova umbrella) are not now, nor have ever been, owned by any foreign entity or person. In fact, since its founding nearly 20 years ago, Columbus Nova has been and continues to be 100% owned by Americans.

As reported in May 2018 by The New York Times, the Renova Group is Columbus Nova's biggest client. When Columbus Nova formed a management company under the name Renova U.S. Management, its largest client at the time was a Renova Group company. Throughout its existence, Columbus Nova has managed assets on behalf of Renova Group companies and other clients. Columbus Nova itself is not now, and has never been, owned by any foreign entity or person including Viktor Vekselberg or the Renova Group. The same is true with regard to all investment management companies under the Columbus Nova umbrella.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/08/dan...p-attorney-cohen-got-money-from-oligarch.html

So Columbus Nova isn't responsible because they created ReNova as a separate LLC and then ReNova became Nova's biggest client, even though it was created by Nova. Now, when people try to figure out what is going on and confuse the two by saying this Victor guy is involved, we hear he is not involved at all in Nova and Nova is 100% American. USA#1! USA#1! Go America!

Wait, but what is his relationship to ReNova, the spin-off LLC used to do the funneling?

According to Wikipedia:
Renova Group is a Russian conglomerate with interests in aluminium, oil, energy, telecoms and a variety of other sectors. The main owner and president is Viktor Vekselberg who founded the company in 1990.[1]

The Renova Group is primarily active in Russia, the C.I.S. states, Switzerland, South Africa and the United States. Its major assets include participation in the oil company TNK-BP and in aluminum producer RUSAL.

In 2010 Renova Group entered into an agreement to provide funding for Fort Ross. It is parent company of Private equity firm Columbus Nova.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renova_Group

Wait, what? I thought Columbus Nova's lawyer said that Columbus Nova was the parent company of ReNova. Exactly which way is the funneling going here?

One of the sources of information for the ReNova group is renova.ru, a Russian website for ReNova with an About Page, referenced in 2016.

If I click the link, I get a "site under construction" message. Hmmmm...

Which LLC is the umbrella here? Is Viktor an American with an American name and with a Russian website?
 

braces_for_impact

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
3,398
Location
Clearwater, FL.
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Yep, it's all very interesting. We have Renova hiring Cohen for real estate matters, AT&T for "special insights" into the Trump administration. Novartis for health care matters, Korea Aerospace...Cohen is an attorney, a healthcare specialist, an accountant, an aerospace engineer and a political wonk, all without being registered as a lobbyist or as working for a foreign government. He is one busy, busy man.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,675
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Here is Columbus Nova on the Russian Renova website which I found in the Internet Archives since renova.ru is "under construction":
https://web.archive.org/web/20160109124539/http://www.renova.ru:80/en/structure/company/detail/130/

I'm still a little confused by this. Russian ReNova was created in 1990 by Russian oligarchs. Columbus Nova was created in 2000 by American oligarchs. Columbus Nova is on the Russian website for ReNova as one of its companies, whatever that means, I don't know. One would think its assets not who it uses for services because it is a client. In any case, then, many years later Columbus Nova creates an American ReNova called Renova U.S. Management, LLC which seems to be a silent entity no one can understand and no one talks about the owners.

ETA: SEC documents point to Cayman Islands and Bahamas. That's not suspicious at all.
 
Last edited:

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
As I said, Trausti's little viral plank is a carefully worded non-denial denial. "Columbus Nova" may not have been the name of the legal entity through which the money was funneled, but that doesn't mean the money wasn't funneled.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,675
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
As I said, Trausti's little viral plank is a carefully worded non-denial denial.

Ah, I see what you mean specifically now. The denial is worthless since it doesn't mention Renova's ownership.

Koyaanisqatsi said:
"Columbus Nova" may not have been the name of the legal entity through which the money was funneled, but that doesn't mean the money wasn't funneled.

Right. And that they didn't say who currently owns Renova may be telling.
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
As I said, Trausti's little viral plank is a carefully worded non-denial denial.

Ah, I see what you mean specifically now. The denial is worthless since it doesn't mention Renova's ownership.

Koyaanisqatsi said:
"Columbus Nova" may not have been the name of the legal entity through which the money was funneled, but that doesn't mean the money wasn't funneled.

Right. And that they didn't say who currently owns Renova may be telling.

Correct. It’s the specificity of the language—and what it thereby omits—that makes it a non-denial denial.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,957
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Here is Columbus Nova on the Russian Renova website which I found in the Internet Archives since renova.ru is "under construction":
https://web.archive.org/web/20160109124539/http://www.renova.ru:80/en/structure/company/detail/130/

I'm still a little confused by this. Russian ReNova was created in 1990 by Russian oligarchs. Columbus Nova was created in 2000 by American oligarchs. Columbus Nova is on the Russian website for ReNova as one of its companies, whatever that means, I don't know. One would think its assets not who it uses for services because it is a client. In any case, then, many years later Columbus Nova creates an American ReNova called Renova U.S. Management, LLC which seems to be a silent entity no one can understand and no one talks about the owners.

ETA: SEC documents point to Cayman Islands and Bahamas. That's not suspicious at all.

According to the archived page, Renova is run by Andrew Intrater, who is the cousin and business partner of oligarch Viktor Vekselberg and has dual US/Russian citizenship. So, technically, the company is owned by an American, but also, technically, it is owned by a Russian. Intrater is also the CEO of Columbus Nova. Basically, this is all run by Putin cronies. Vekselberg is one of the few oligarchs that Putin did not displace after he took power and started shaking them all down. Apparently, Vekselberg made some correct guesses and decisions that less fortunate oligarchs did not. He got with the program and got rewarded.

Besides funneling money to Cohen, Intrater also donated a quarter million dollars to Trump's campaign fund for the presidential election. I suspect that there were other payments by other means, as well, but we'll have to wait and see what else comes out as this mess unravels.

ETA: Intrater has been interviewed by the Mueller team, so his responses to questions can be cross-referenced with Vekselberg's, Cohen's, Trump's, and everyone else involved in the American scandal. I'm sure that Vlad goes to bed every night and thanks Бог that he doesn't have to put up with all the annoying press and prosecutions. He has had a steep learning curve to learn about the limitations on an American presidency. All that money and all that effort and those pesky sanctions are still in place.
 
Top Bottom