barbos
Contributor
You are not listening to what I say.
-
Features
RussiaGate
- Thread starter Don2 (Don1 Revised)
- Start date
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Doctoring a video, putting that up on an official White House website, and not removing that when called on it is unacceptable. Pretending that leaving that up while supposedly sending a correct unaltered video to the White House archivist is acceptable is unacceptable behavior. What part of this are you unable to understand?
Fake news from the most dishonest president ever. And the Kremlin did much the same.
barbos
Contributor
You are engaging in Whataboutism. As I said, I don't care about bunch of deplorables in WH. My concern is with CNN, have they corrected and apologized for misinforming american public?
Show the evidence that Kremlin changed their transcript.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
No whataboutism. Simply noting the facts. Trump is a liar.
http://thehill.com/policy/internati...d-putin-support-for-trump-from-official-video
...
"They just dropped it out," Maddow said. “What the White House has disappeared from the official U.S. government record of that meeting ... is President Putin answering in the affirmative when asked if he wanted Trump to win the election,” Maddow said.
The Atlantic was the first news outlet to point out the differences. Maddow added that the Russian government's transcript from the event nixes Mason's question completely.
...
Down that Orwellian memory hole!
Elixir
Made in America
barbos
Contributor
Wow, what a news!
That's not what I want from her.
That's not what I asked you to do, I asked you for a proof that russians had one transcript then changed it to another removing that particular part.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
There were cameras that recorded the entire exchange. It is not like there were Russian cameras that recorded a different exchange. So the Kremlin simply removed that entire segment of the question and answer. For Pootie, it is a problem. He admitted he wanted Trump to win. This could be a problem when Trump finally goes down in 2020 if not sooner. And he does not want the Russian people to see how he may have screwed up and made enemies for the future with his blunt answer.
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
It is possible that barbos simply cannot access an undoctored version of the press conference. Russians have limited access to uncensored news, but I suspect that barbos has more exposure to Western media than most Russians. So I think that he could verify the accuracy of Maddows' report without demanding us to prove it to him. I heard the original exchange, and I agree with his point that Putin only intended to say he supported Trump's candidacy, not that he ordered his intelligence services to aid Trump's election. Putin goofed, because he did not make that totally clear in his response. Hence, he had the official transcript doctored, as did Trump.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Here is question: "Did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?" There is another thread on this. In any case, "Yes. I wanted him to win" can be answer to both parts and it isn't necessarily as nefarious and illegal as it is made out. Suppose, Putin directed officials to communicate to Russian American citizens/lobbyists who have an interest in better US/Russia relations or diplomacy such as those who lobby Congress for Russian adoptions to be open again. That may not be illegal or nefarious so long as each individual is following the law.
blastula
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 10,630
- Gender
- Late for dinner
- Basic Beliefs
- Gnostic atheist
Maybe this will clear up the transcript issue.
No, the White House didn’t intentionally edit a question to Putin out of a video - The Washington Post
No, the White House didn’t intentionally edit a question to Putin out of a video - The Washington Post
barbos
Contributor
So now you say that russians doctored CNN version and then subsequently doctored Colbert show, then went on and doctored NPR version so that they had to admit they made a mistake, then they had do go and doctor alll the rest of the news companies which agreeed that Putin did not say what CNN lady says he said.
And the damn Maddow link itself which says WH and Kremlin doctored transcript says Kremlin video is not doctored.
Now comes Copernicus with his explanation....
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
That's an interesting article, but it doesn't explain the Kremlin version of the conference, which omitted the entire exchange. It explains the US version, but that version has Putin (who understands English well enough) answering in the affirmative to just the part of the question that was about directing Russian officials to aid Trump's election. Putin's answer was "Yes, I wanted him to win", which indicated that he had heard at least the first part of the question and was responding to that part of it. not the part about directing officials to help Trump win.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
It’s enough that he confirmed that he wanted Trump to win. That he orchestrated a cyberattack is not in question. That he confirmed the candidate he supported only underscores the fact that he specifically targeted Clinton in that attack, so the lie of “general attack to undermine democracy” is now fully put to bed.
It also means that we’re talking years ago in the process (most likely 2013 at the Miss Universe pageant as the beginning of the plan-in-motion), as the attack required planning and coordination and assets (i.e., hackers/trolls) in place with orders. We know generally that the groundwork for the cyber offensive was implemented in 2014, so the groundwork for “I wanted Trump” was LONG before Trump even announced he was running.
He wanted Trump; he targeted Clinton to get Trump; he got Trump and Trump knew this was all happening at the time and encouraged it. That is treasonous.
It also means that we’re talking years ago in the process (most likely 2013 at the Miss Universe pageant as the beginning of the plan-in-motion), as the attack required planning and coordination and assets (i.e., hackers/trolls) in place with orders. We know generally that the groundwork for the cyber offensive was implemented in 2014, so the groundwork for “I wanted Trump” was LONG before Trump even announced he was running.
He wanted Trump; he targeted Clinton to get Trump; he got Trump and Trump knew this was all happening at the time and encouraged it. That is treasonous.
Last edited:
Underseer
Contributor
Yeah, if Putin understands English, then the WaPo excuse falls apart.
Underseer
Contributor
So America was attacked. All 17 intelligence agencies agree that America was attacked and that we're about to be attacked again.
Trump's response to this fact was to grovel before Putin in public at the Helsinki conference and to deny that the attack occurred.
The Republican legislature's response has been to slash the budget for defending America from this kind of attack, thus making the next attack more likely to succeed.
But this is not an example of Republicans surrendering voluntarily.
Europe's failure to engage in ethnic cleansing is evidence of Europe "submitting voluntarily."
It's hard to fathom the mindset capable of producing arguments this bizarre and awful.
Trump's response to this fact was to grovel before Putin in public at the Helsinki conference and to deny that the attack occurred.
The Republican legislature's response has been to slash the budget for defending America from this kind of attack, thus making the next attack more likely to succeed.
But this is not an example of Republicans surrendering voluntarily.
Europe's failure to engage in ethnic cleansing is evidence of Europe "submitting voluntarily."
It's hard to fathom the mindset capable of producing arguments this bizarre and awful.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
I used to know a number of Russians who were simultaneous translators at the UN, including the man who eventually became Gorbachev's main translator. Simultaneous translation is an extremely difficult skill to master, especially since idioms and metaphors add an extra layer of complexity. It is far more difficult than written translations. Putin does himself no favors by adding to the stress of translators. In this particular case, Putin was fumbling with his earpiece as the question was being asked, so he could conceivably have missed the last part of the question. However, he apparently has excellent understanding of English, and I suspect he simply did not want to address the part of the question that asked about ordering people to meddle in our election.
Generally speaking, Western politicians are used to answering loaded questions from the press and have learned the technique of the "pivot"--i.e. rephrasing the question to one that they wished the reporter to have asked and then answering the rephrased question. Putin seldom faces hostile reporters and is more used to softball questions from Russian reporters, so he tends to give direct answers. I don't think that he handled this reporter's question very well.
Apparently, the White House has re-edited their transcript after Maddows' report on the matter. They have not yet corrected the audio. I don't think that the Russian side has bothered to restore the censored portion of the press conference.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
I was wondering what the term was for this "simultaneous translation." Very cool to know.
Copernicus said:
I am sure you are 100% correct. Do note though that in this particular case, there weren't any idioms. Also the English was fairly simple.
Copernicus said:
If he were fumbling with the earpiece, he may have done it intentionally. If not, he may have "missed" (I use quotes because he would still hear things outside the earphones) the first part of the question instead and only heard the last part. Either way he would know there was another part and would be able to hear it from outside the earpiece.
Note that "Yes. I wanted him to win," works as an answer to part B by itself.
Copernicus said:
Or maybe since the question isn't as nefarious as people seem to think, maybe he was answering the question (i.e. both parts) with his answer:
"Yes. I wanted him to win." Note that it works as an answer to part A and B simultaneously which if there is no good evidence he could hear a part, one might think is the answer.
It's like this:
Questioner: "Do you like cheese and do you buy cheese at the store?"
Answerer: "Yes. I love cheese." It answers part A and B simultaneously.
Also, regarding this part "...I suspect he simply did not want to address the part of the question that asked about ordering people to meddle in our election."
Surely, being a long-time politician and person who understands public perception both in dictatorship and outside as well as propaganda, he would understand how this would play out if he only answered the first part? Which might explain why he removed the earpiece [intentionally] and pretended to only hear first part?
Copernicus said:
Putin knows the difference and has been in the spotlight in non-dictatorships answering questions etc for a long time. At home things may be a little different but still...so perhaps upon hearing in English the second part of the question and knowing what his translator would say he removed earpiece before the translator said it in Russian and then answered the first part, knowing his Russian propaganda news outlets would defend him and then as a logical consequence, that propaganda would feed into the Republican machine as well. Who knows.
Let's analyze this another way. I have not watched the video. How many times prior to this tough question did Putin remove/fumble with his earpiece? If none, then it's an extreme coincidence of fumbling at the same time as the most difficult question.
Copernicus said:
Birds of a feather --
barbos
Contributor
It's pretty unbelievable that you are still discussing and trying hard to put somehow the blame on Putin.
Everyting is about Putin
Why is this need to blame him for everything?
CNN fucked it up. They need to correct themselves and apologize. Same goes for Maddow.
Of course if history is any indication they won't.
Everyting is about Putin
Why is this need to blame him for everything?
CNN fucked it up. They need to correct themselves and apologize. Same goes for Maddow.
Of course if history is any indication they won't.
What part of "Putin started answering the first part 1 second after journalist finished his second part" you do not understand? And no, he does not have excellent understanding of English, otherwise he would not have been using earpieces in the first place and would have made the job of his translators a lot easier.
Last edited:
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Oh, are you still here?
Not everything, but nice pointless use of hyperbole.
Maybe.
Incorrect. All Maddow pointed out was that Putin confirmed that he had a clear choice in the election, which contradicts the Trump/GOP argument that Putin was just meddling in general and had no particular bias toward or in support of one particular candidate. That is a separate issue and an important point all on its own that he did, in fact, have a preferred candidate and therefore was not just meddling in general.
Since you are clearly not a student of history, here's a breakdown of instances where CNN anchors/reporters (and other legitimate news outlets) made mistakes and then corrected those mistakes.
What part of fallacy of the loaded question do you not understand? That was rhetorical, of course.
The Kremlin contradicts you, though the way they put it was "he practically understands English completely and sometimes even corrects the translators."