« Seven Years into the Civil War: What is left of the "Syrian Arab Army" ? | Main | The text of the indictment of the SVR 13. »

16 February 2018


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


With all due respect (and I read you assiduously), GeneO raises a valid point. Mueller’s text, paraphrased accurately, says that some of the Russians contacted Trump campaigners with the intent to seek a collaboration. That’s all it says. Nothing is said about a collaboration having been achieved with anyone or any organization

At the conclusion of your original essay, you augment Mueller with your own interpretations and words: “anyone who was disparaging Clinton, may have”; “been a collaborator with the 13 Russian”; and “who cost Hillary the election”. You wrap your added words around two words that Mueller did use, “unwittingly” and “specialists”. By doing this, you concoct a statement that summarizes what you read into the indictment, likely what you regard as Mueller’s unspoken message.

Having done this, you present the blend of your several words and Mueller’s two words as Mueller’s conclusion. In this, you stretch a bit too far. ”Anyone who was disparaging Clinton, may have ‘unwittingly’ been a collaborator with the 13 Russian ‘specialists’ who cost Hillary the election” is your conclusion, not Mueller’s. To have prefaced the conclusion with something like “Here is what I think Mueller really means” would have been acceptable, and the supposition very likely might have been accurate. To say “And here is Mueller’s conclusion” is disingenuous.

Publius Tacitus

GeneO, It is not "MY CLAIM." I'm quoting from Politico. Please learn to read and comprehend. I don't suffer fools well.

Here is the specific quote:
"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators found those Russians communicated with “unwitting” Trump campaign officials and other political activists before and after the 2016 election."


Well it is an organisation that has received a lot of publicity in the West for awhile so it is an odd choice, I would have thought they would want a less public organisation for any IO.

Comey was telling the truth, he was still in the delusional belief he could weasel out of it and continue on as FBI chief.

Peter AU

PT, in the latest, US indictment against a number of Russians, as its only example, cites a US placard holder on the birthday of JFK as evidence of "Russian interference". Jeez, JFK was a Russian?
what a friggin shambles the empire has become.

Bill H

Yes indeed. As I said before in another thread. If the election is "disrupted" by voters altering their votes due to Russians posting on Facebook, then the problem is not that Russians are posting on Facebook, the problem is that voters are altering their votes based on posts they read on Facebook. There is little point in correcting the former problem without correcting the latter and vastly more serious problem.

The indictment accuses Russia of attempting to "diminish the public's faith in democracy," or some such thing. I really don't think our own voting public needs Russia's help in doing that.


Nope, our crooked Politicians AND Intelligence/Law Enforcement entities are doing a good job of diminishing the public's faith. I don't know how many of my fellow Americans I have talked to have said to round them all the crooked politicians/intelligence/law enforcement and eradicate them from the earth permanently. That is why we see more and more the crooked politicians/intelligence/law enforcement understanding well their simmering public anger, and because of their fear of the angry public that they have created the surveillance grids (has nothing to do with misnomer terrorism), their legislation/laws that further restrict the public's ability to fight back against their crooked ways.

Diminished public faith, that's putting it mildly.


Mueller had a year and an unlimited budget, and all he has to show is an episode of "MTV's Catfish".

But that's not the point. The point is to distract from Deep State malfeasance, and use russiagate on domestic dissent.

Do you know whether that meme you are sharing didn't originate from.. RUSSIA!

different clue

The Democrats remember how well the Republicans ( with help from Truman and others)
made Loyalty Oathism and HUACism and McCarthyism work for them. So the Democrats have decided to try making their own 2.0 version of Loyalty Oathism and HUACism and McCarthyism work for them. They will spend the next several-to-many years running their Reverse McCarthyism 2.0 operation.

They will accuse any Bitter Berners rejectful of yet-one-more-Clintonite of witless dupe-ness. If that doesn't win us over, they will accuse us of Russian subversive Fellow-Traveller-ism. If that doesn't win us over, they will accuse us of being Russian agents.

Of course they will try doing this to Republicans as well. If the Republicans complain, the Democrats will say such complaints are proof of Republican secret-Russian-agent subversionism; while quietly thinking to themselves " payback time for
McCarthy and HUAC").


Thanks,PT, as usual.

I have no connection to intelligence agencies. I'm a mere citizen. I've been spending the last few days making cold calls to registered party members here in CO, trying to get them interested in the caucuses that are coming up. Remember how the caucuses became an issue when Trump was running?

Almost no one responded that they were going to attend. Several said they were so sick of politics they would definitely not attend. I'm beginning to believe that I and our precinct captain and her husband will be the only ones there.

What a sad state our country is in. Your last line is true, to a great extent, but I have to add to it. Yes, we need God to help American. And, yes, many Americans seem to have lost their mind. But what makes me sadder is that most of us who have not lost our minds are losing our belief that we could ever make a difference, to make things better.


I hate the ´legalese´ passionately, and the Mueller´ document is just that - written by lawyers for lawyers - and only the translations of it into common English and interpretations are important for the common folks. That is what the mass media are doing, and why independent sources like this blog are so important - I am quite sure that lawyers in the media and in the Muellers team and in the government are reading here as well, or I hope they do, because here they can follow the logical discussion of all aspects. IMO - the case is clear that there is collusion in the highest levels of US `nomenklatura´.


PT, Colonel, TTG,

One of the vultures is trying to create more carrion, Clinton's NECON DCI Woolsey is flapping his beak



Hi Diane, could you go into more detail about the caucuses Trump had trouble with? I know for instance in Colorado the delegates picked Cruz without allowing a public vote. And from Fox News to CNN, they tried to pass it off as if it was totally acceptable and normal. Maybe in Communist China or the Jim Crow era that kind of thing would have been tolerated, but they didn't fool many people in the end and sort of backed off after that in the remaining primaries. As I understood it, they were trying to use Cruz as a Trojan Horse to get enough votes to deny Trump from clinching the nomination so that at the convention they could contest it and then eventually nominate someone else, namely Paul Ryan. Perhaps you're referring to other troubles, but in any case please go into detail.

PT, I hope your patience isn't running out on us. As I've said before, you're work on this subject is very much appreciated. To return to a point I made in the previous comment section, Senator Harry Reid said back in July 2016 that Trump should be given "fake briefings." And he elaborated by saying "don't tell [Trump] anything you don't want to get out." Now in the other comment section I mistakenly thought Nunes and others weren't given the briefings, but based on what you said above it appears they were given what Harry Reid had dubbed "fake briefings." That is to say, they weren't given all the facts, at least not the same facts Reid and their other allies, like Adam Schiff, were given. Am I correct to conclude as much?


Publius Tacitus

Yes. You are correct


"But what makes me sadder is that most of us who have not lost our minds are losing our belief that we could ever make a difference, to make things better."

Patience and stand for your belief through the thick and thin of dark times. The dam is going to break.

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