« The three NY Times sources ... | Main | Middle East Summary - 12 July 2017 »

11 July 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


The Media wants WWIII, the US media has always been Pro-War since they pushed for the Spanish-American War with yellow journalism.


The media’s mass hysteria over ‘collusion’ is out of control https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/07/11/the-medias-mass-hysteria-over-collusion-is-out-of-control/?utm_term=.b4eff69bf149

The lede to Ed Rogers op-ed reads:

Hysteria among the media and Trump opponents over the prospect of “collusion” between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin may have hit its crescendo this week. That’s right: The wailing from the media and their allies about Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with some “Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer” (whatever that means) may be the last gasp of this faux scandal. Good riddance.
Green Zone Café

You might be right that the Steele dossier is entirely false. That is one "theory of the case." It does not rule out other possible fact patterns.

The question is whether there was collusion regarding the hacking of the DNC emails and their subsequent release by Wikileaks, which happened after the meeting.

The media is inflating the significance of the meeting, but there might be many more facts which Mueller can discover.

Trump will be gone within the year. Not just because of the Russian stuff, because American elites, managers, and the GOP itself can't tolerate the turmoil Trump creates.


Why Would You Meet With a Nobody Promising a Watch, If Putin Already Gave You a Rolex? http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=10591#sthash.C0CIC3uc.uxfs … via @streetwiseprof


Trump Jr released his entire email chain.


British-born Goldstone adds in the exchange of 3 June 2016: “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump.”

Still have no idea if there was collusion, and my best guess is that there was not, but you would think Trump could learn from the mistakes of other politicians and just release everything and get it out of the way. Clinton did the same thing and hurt herself by not being forthcoming about her emails. I guess it is just a natural tendency of politicians to try to hide stuff.


The publicist, Mr. Goldstone gets a meeting for a Russian lawyer who is in the country illegally.

She was denied a visa and her parole has expired.

Eight days after the meeting with Mr. Trump, Jr. she appears to watch a Congressional hearing, at which the former US Ambassador to Russia (appointed by Obama and kicked out by Putin) gives evidence.

(Senator Grassley is already asking questions.)

Oh yes, Fusion GPS has a bit part to play in this little saga.

(The same entity currently seeking to stone wall Senator Grassley over the funding of the Steele dossier.)

A year and a month later, the NY Times breaks the story.

The whole thing is fishy to say the least, especially as the proverbial hits the fan while Mr. Comey is being accused of leaking classified information to get back at the President.

(Are we looking at an FBI / Intelligence Community operation as Pat Lang suggests?)

In any event:

Why Would You Meet With a Nobody Promising a Watch, If Putin Already Gave You a Rolex? http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=10591

P.S. Oh yes, one has to give Mr. Goldstone some credit. Look how much the American people have learned about the Maginsky Act and Russian adoptions in the last day or so.


So young Donald got conned into meeting with a flake? so what? i have occasionally had the same thing happen to me.

For example, I took a meeting with a guy who i was told wanted us to manufacture aircraft stuff. Turned out he wanted us to get around a U.S. arms control act so I flicked him off. What does that make me, apart from stupid? Nothing to see here.


Oh man. Y'all remember this moment. Maybe learn something.


"And since the DNC emails were not a hack, but a leak, the point is moot"

We don't know whether it's true or not. Currently it's only a speculation that resulted from a shoddy analysis.



Except that the President of the USA at the time, President Obama, said they were leaked. This was in his final press conference. You can watch it here:

Around the eight-minute mark of the press conference, Obama says he hasn’t “commented on WikiLeaks generally,” and that the “conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the [Democratic National Committee] DNC e-mails that were leaked.”

Mark Logan


It would have been a complete nothing burger if the Trumps hadn't been denying any contacts for months. Now it has been revealed Don Jr. eagerly went to a meeting wherein such was promised...and brought several campaign people along with him. All have repeatedly denied any contacts.

An environment in which the boss lies shamelessly carries risks. Bet the house that his or her employees will start lying too...and the dumber ones will weave unnecessary tangled webs when there is no reason to do so.

So young Donald got conned into meeting with a flake? so what?
And for 20 minutes. Big whoop. No wonder the Chinese are cleaning our clocks in innovation; can you imagine this being an issue there?

Not just the Millennials, the entire nation--present company excepted--seems to have become a nation of snowflakes.


Who or what is Rob Goldstone? Mercouris, at the Russian outlet Duran, points out the oddities in his emails.


Who is/was orchestrating all this?

Dante Alighieri

Wow! “Terrible naiveté” of Don Junior, Kush and Manafort is now the new line of defense? Allow me a little chuckle.



A whole load of research already done on this curious sting(?) operation.


The e-mail story speaks for itself.

Ah well, fraud and lies are a bad thing and rather widespread even in quite ordinary things.

Well, when I was a boy, I was delivering a christian magazine in my city, and had to collect the sums it cost to abonnise it and give it to my manager. One day my manager came and, unusually, visited me at home, to tell me he had GREAT NEWS for me. I asked if he was to raise my pay. No, he wasn't, but he said, radiant, that the great news was that he had no less than 14 new customers for the journal and I was proposed the honour to deliver the paper to them too, and had to collect the money there as well.

Ah well. Apparently the publisher had some agent troup underway in the town who had delivered new abonnement contracts. Alas. I didn't mind the extra work, and so I agreed also 'to serve' the new abonnents. So I delivered the papers and, well, I tried to collect the money from the new ones. When I say 'tried' that's only for precision since with some of the new customers it practically was about as much fun as pulling teeth.

Some of the new abonnents didn't speak german (making me wonder what they would, could do with a german christian magazine, writen in, yes, german - would they use it on the loot?), and I still wonder whether some could even read. To one customer, by the name he came from turkey, I had to go every month for about six times for the bill money.

Always his kids told me that they didn't have any money, which was absurd since the price per month was about a single euro (or, back then two DM) a month, i.e. about nothing. One time one kid told me that they had no money, and held a beer bottle in his hand. If he didn't stole it, he must have bought it, with ... some money. Alas. Finally, the kid, annoyed by my repeated visits (and annoyed I was, too) invited me inside to talk with his dad. Dad was about 70 or so years old and I told him that he owed me money for the abonnement of the paper, and his kids translated (So dad didn't speak german but abonnised a german journal?). Ah yes, he said, and, no, he didn't have any money but asked if I want some tea and read a Koran? How ... quite christian. He offered me tea and to read the Koran - but he adonned a christian journal? Absurd.

Well, rather obviously, he had signed a contract he didn't understand or was persuaded to by trained babblers, or, well, fraudsters. So, the agent gang had been a fraud gang who had succeeded in babbling an idiot into signing a contract for stuff they didn't need, understand or care for. Naturally, for every signed contract the gang got a bonus. My manager was a naive fool, the whole affair was nasty, annoying and to me also slightly costly (since I had to prepay when getting the papers, which means that, if you had folks who didn't pay, you lost money - having some 9 of such jokers added up).

So, I quit the job after two months of that bad joke, for which I am happy: More time, less annoyance, no longer my fool manager, less stress and, in the end, more money since I then started to work as a photolab worker for a local newspaper, developing and printing whatever images the reporters took of bunny clubs, pigeon clubs, horse clubs, chess clubs, stamp clubs, garden clubs, some politicos visiting various of such clubs etc. pp. The only disadvantage of that job was that it was usually late night weekend work, since the films to be worked were usually delivered thursday evening, friday evening, saturday evening and sometimes sunday evening. But then, however late, it as work at home, and I never again got any 'tea and koran' offers (about which I am not sad).


Mark Logan
The contact wasn't with the Russian government, it wasn't even with a person who claims contacts with the Russian government but a mid-level commercial lawyer who seems to deny any involvement with the Russian government beyond being a Russian citizen.


Great post.

David Habakkuk


As far as the UK is concerned, the neo-McCarthyite claims about Russia are to some extent boomeranging.

A commenter whose observations have regularly been among the ‘Most recommended’ on the ‘Financial Times’, who uses the name ‘MarkGB’, has set up his own blog, which originally simply reproduced his comments, and now has other material.

In a column yesterday entitled ‘Donald Trump’s clash of civilisations versus the global community, the paper’s chief economics commentator, Martin Wolf, described terrorism as ‘just a nuisance.’ In his response, which when I last looked received the second highest number of recommendations, ‘MarkGB’ focused on the question of the responsibility of Western governments for the phenomenon:

“Terrorism is a symptom of something far bigger than you suggest. The magnitude of the violence that has accelerated over the past fifteen years is the inevitable effect of an imperialistic foreign policy that flourished under Bush & his poodle Blair, that overwhelmed Obama, that has now got Donald Trump exactly where it wants him – throwing tomahawks out of his cot, posing next to a glowing orb with Saruman, demonising Iran, and scared to engage with Russia because he is afraid of being seen as a ‘puppet’ of Putin. He is a ‘puppet’ – a neocon puppet.

“Trump is weak because he hasn’t got the bottle to stand up to those people. If we want this world to be a better place, and I really get that you do Mr Wolf – we should be insisting that the US and Russia work together, insist that they stop fighting each other though proxies. Trump should say to the neoconservatives – “I’m sorry gentlemen, your profits and your delusion of exceptionalism, can both go to hell – the door’s over there”

“Terrorism is not a nuisance – it is a symptom of insanity in the perpetrators – but what it says about the western governments who ‘use it’ for an imperialistic agenda, is far worse than insane – it, and they, are evil.”

(See http://www.markgb.com/blog/2017/7/11/rather-more-than-just-a-nuisance .)

When in May, shortly following the Manchester bombing, Jeremy Corbyn made the argument about ‘blowback’, the Tories thought they had a god-sent opportunity. The Political Editor of the ‘Spectator’, James Forsyth, wrote:

‘Corbyn’s argument seems particularly ill-judged in the light of Monday night’s attack. The fact that a concert aimed at young women was specifically targeted is a reminder that these terrorists hate us not because of a particular foreign policy decision but because of the way we live our lives, and how our society is organised. To pretend that this is about Anglo-American policy in the Middle East is deluded. Corbyn’s failure to understand this, and his desire to find a way to blame the West for what is happening, is one of the many reasons that Corbyn isn’t fit to lead a political party, let alone be Prime Minister.’

(See https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/corbyn-british-foreign-policy-leads-terrorism-home/ .)

As the remarks by ‘MarkGB’ illustrate the ‘mainstream’ – whether Tory or Blairite ‘New Labour’ had totally misjudged the mood. Very many people who have cordially disliked Corbyn all their lives, and still think his views on many things are dotty, thought that on foreign policy questions he was talking sense and nobody else was – and that the ‘they hate us because of the way we live our lives’ talk so beloved of ‘neocons’ is at best a very dangerous half-truth.

The continuing failure of élites in Britain and the United States to understand the groundswell of discontent that has been building up is something I find most puzzling. And they really are not helping themselves by trying to blame everything on Putin.

When people see élites who have led us from one shambles to another, both in foreign and domestic policy, refusing to take any responsibility, accept any blame, or change direction in any signficant manner, and they are told that they only object because they are Putin’s ‘useful idiots’, the effect is liable to be, to put it mildly, counter-productive.


Thanks for making a good and should be obvious point, that merits some discussion. Let me toss out:

Perhaps the administration of the Don(ald) feels that this nothing burger as good electoral strategy. It certainly pushes attention off of other administration activities (actually, off of all other items in the news).

Walrus: the analogy would be if you had already cornered the market for airplane parts, knew everyone, had more business than you could handle, and everything about the tosser was dodgy. Oh, and you were rich rich rich and had no time to spare because you were working on a billion dollar DOD proposal.


fyi Early this morning, the President in reply to one of his own tweets under the handle @realDonaldTrump, posted the following:

[email protected] states "Democrats have willfully used Moscow disinformation to influence the presidential election against Donald Trump."

Later, Jeff Lord tweeted out the article (which Drudge has now posted)

Democrats spread false Russian information on Trump, campaign aides - http://go.shr.lc/2vadQUk - @washtimes

Eric Newhill

Ah, Interesting. So this was a "sting" set up by Clinton/Obama, but it resulted in nothing worthwhile that could be used during the campaign cycle. That it is being released now shows that the Borg is desperate and running out of ammunition.

Babak Makkinejad



I saw this article and immediately thought of you:



Slight nitpick. The lawyer never claimed to have info on Clinton. She just wanted to talk about the Russian adoption law. As far as I can tell the British record producer who set up the meeting made up the story about Clinton criminal evidence.


Of course there is no collusion, no hacking, no anything else, other than Trump and his family being dopes.

But the Deep State (or whatever you want to call it) and the American Establishment want Trump gone, and russiagate happens to be the fastest way for that to happen, short of assassination.

So unless and until they find a better way to rid themselves of Trump, russiagate will drag on until the desired results are achieved.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad