The former ethics attorney for the idiot Bush made reference to an article which said the FBI was investigating ‘right wing’ websites — who might’ve been complicit in helping the, err, Russians win the election for their agent — Donald J. Trump. You’ve got to be kidding me with this shit.
A little background on Mr. Painter.
Professor Richard W. Painter received his B.A., summa cum laude, in history from Harvard University and his J.D. from Yale University, where he was an editor of the Yale Journal on Regulation. Following law school, he clerked for Judge John T. Noonan Jr., of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and later practiced at Sullivan & Cromwell in New York City and Finn Dixon & Herling in Stamford, Connecticut.
He also writes for Huffington Post — where he shills all day.
His Twitter feed reads like a disjointed Anti-Trump fanatic — hedged by his role inside of the GW Bush administration.
FBI uncovering evidence of treason. There is no other word for it.https://t.co/JLY7KZfQIY
— Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA) March 23, 2017
During the campaign, Mr. Painter was an outspoken advocate for Hillary — writing an oped piece in the NY Times saying she was the “only qualified candidate in the race and she should become president.”
“There is little if any evidence that federal ethics laws were broken by Mrs. Clinton or anyone working for her at the State Department in their dealings with the foundation.”
Right (wink, wink).
In short, the media, once again, have been caught trying to be duplicitous with their headlines — painting Painter as a former republican distraught by the presence of Donald Trump in the White House — a conscientious objector, when in fact he’s nothing more than a life long liberal who happened to have a 2 year stint inside of GW’s neocon heavy administration
Fuck off.
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
Why do you refuse to believe that the Trump campaign might have colluded with the Russians? There’s plenty of individuals with connections to the Russians. Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, Stone, Page, Sater. You’re just giving us background on Painter, while factual, doesn’t amount to more than presenting a straw man. Why so much eye-rolling about this? Are you on the Brietbart payroll?
I wonder on whose payroll is the good Professor Richard W. Painter. Or if CIA has something on comrade Painter . Methinks the good professor is a bit overzealous in his pinko politics.
Hillary Clinton and her “foundation” have more ties to the Russians.
Bingo.
Ones if the rules for radicals is to accuse your opponent of the thing you’re already doing. Misdirection.
Because there was such an overextension overreach by the losing side power structure to create/foment/legitimize/obtain that timeline, it’s deception. Easy propaganda where if you say something long enough, repeat often enough, suggest no fire equals smoke, you actually get some acceptance and they’ve gotten it.
“Connections to the russians” is a loaded phrase, they’ve used it as propaganda
Doing business or having business ties or political relationships with an important country like Russia? (which is not the ussr anymore, has a red white blue flag, and of which putin said years ago he wants to guide toward what his people want which is now democracy)
I mean for fuck’s sake, you stil haven’t let go of the most ridiculous of whacko conspiracy theories, Pizzagate. Yet when presented with evidence, it’s “you’ve got to be kidding me with this shit.”
What evidence did you present? You showed me NEWSWEEK article that called some youtuber crazy. I showed you an article that showed the heir to Dupont pleading guilty to raping his 3 yr old daughter and the judge said he shouldn’t go to jail because he wouldn’t do well there.
Now you’re denying child pedophilia? Is this a joke or are you drunk?
I didn’t see the Dupont thing, or at least I don’t remember it. Sometimes I am drunk.
Please enjoy this Voyage into Pizzagate, a journey into the most delusional reaches of 4chan and TheDonald subreddit, when you have an hour or so.
https://gimletmedia.com/episode/83-voyage-into-pizzagate/
Are you at least getting paid for this pinko trolling? That’s some admirable effort you’re showing here.
the fake news continues, unabated. We have not yet reached the fake news tipping point.
the end of the empire cometh
it will indeed, as long as Republicans and their rightwing minions continue their partisan assault on the truth.
You people will be rounded up one day. Thank god the left are anti gun zealots.
The pussy hats are buying guns like crazy. Afraid of the trump rednecks who are locked and loaded.
I’ll give you the floor.
What Manafort did as a private citizen in business, more than a decade ago, is immaterial. Any of the action by people other than Trump are immaterial. He is not responsible for their ties.
So let’s break this down to the very nexus of the claim.
Russia interfered in our elections because….
Because Crowd Strike said so. Who is Crowd strike?
Here it is.
http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/2017/03/22/muzzled-breitbart-wh-correspondent-ordered-not-to-ask-televised-question-discrediting-dnc-russian-hacking-report/
The only thing we are talking about here is Russia giving Wikileaks John Podesta’s emails. Period. Nothing more.
So prove it, faggot.
Pro tip: you can’t. There’s nothing there other than a server. The whole Russian narrative is fake, 100%, from the beginning. This is about discrediting Wikileaks, butthurt dems mad that Hillary lost again, and establishment neocons clamoring for war.
Regarding Russia, we have much more in common with them than, let’s say, Saudi Arabia, a country that is very active in our government, especially the DNC and Hillary, yet no one seems the least bit concerned with that.
So, go ahead Ginfizz. Prove the connection between Wikileaks and Russia and then prove to me that Trump was involved in the hacks.
You’re wasting your time…..
as a Dr shouldn’t you’re tips be prophylactic…….LOL
seriously, Stephen Cohen has a lot of insight into Russia… he is on WABC 770AM Tuesday nights 10-11 pm as a guest of John Batchelor.
https://www.thenation.com/article/might-neo-mccarthyism-mean-war-vs-russia/
Nation Contributing Editor Stephen F. Cohen and John Batchelor continue their weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. (Previous installments, now in their fourth year, are at TheNation.com.) This installment focuses on the House’s hearings on what Democratic Representative Adam Schiff termed “the Russian attack on our democracy”—that is, the Kremlin’s alleged hacking of the DNC—and allegations that the Trump campaign had “colluded” with the Kremlin in this. Batchelor, who has been reading a new book about the Eisenhower years, reflects on analogies with Senator Joseph McCarthy’s hearings and allegations of that period. Cohen expresses deep anger and dismay over the neo-McCarthyism now unfolding in Washington, over the driving role being played by liberal and even progressive Democrats and their media in this increasingly institutionalized hysteria, and over the grave dangers it poses both for American democracy and US-Russian relations.
Cohen emphasizes the unmistakable elements of McCarthy-like slurring of people associated with Trump but also implicitly many more who are not—even people who did not support Trump’s presidential candidacy. During the House session, representative after representative, most of them Democrats, demanded the “unmasking” of people who had or who have “contacts” with Russia. Under suspicion was anyone who had traveled frequently to Russia, married a Russian, written or spoken critically of US policy toward Russia, or, as another Democrat put it, otherwise done “Putin’s bidding,” referring to the new secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, in his previous role as CEO of Exxon-Mobile. All of this, Cohen points out, might implicate thousands of American business executives, scholars, journalists, diplomats, cultural figures, and others. In the unfolding narrative, any “contact” or “connection” with Russia might again be construed as disloyalty if not worse.
The stakes are higher now than ever. Get The Nation in your inbox.
The low point of the Hearing might have been the Democrats’ rehabilitation of the infamous “dossier” compiled against Trump by a for-hire British former intelligence agent. Its new promoters sanctimoniously declined to mention its “X-rated” element—the charge that Trump hired prostitutes in Moscow and had them urinate on a hotel bed once used by President Obama—but it is precisely these preposterous aspects that go a long way toward discrediting the entire document. It was, Cohen thinks, a shameful day in American political history and one that further chills discourse about Russia in several American professions, as the original McCarthyism did—and, also like that plague, ruins reputations and lives along the way. Most astonishing perhaps was the spectacle of FBI Director James Comey emerging in J. Edgar Hoover’s role as a great authority on Russia—in this case, on the politics of Putin’s Russia and Putin himself, including his personal motives, plans, etc. And of Schiff, in his opening statement about a Kremlin conspiracy against “our democracy” and, referring to “collusion,” about “one of the most shocking betrayals of our democracy in history”—morphing into McCarthy himself.
As usual, Congress was not acting in a political vacuum. For months, Cohen continues, mainstream media, mostly associated with the Democratic Party—from The New York Times and The Washington Post to The New Yorker and Politico; from MSNBC and CNN to NPR—have zealously promoted the theme of a Trump-Putin conspiracy, even a “Trump-Putin regime” (the Times’ Paul Krugman, among others) in the White House. Almost nightly for weeks, Rachel Maddow has been flinging unverified allegations against Trump and his “associates,” as have CNN panelists and anchors, always without unaffiliated skeptical, still less dissenting, voices. But the hysteria is now politically correct and widespread. Thus MSNBC’s Chris Matthews declared that loyal “Americans don’t go to Russia” (March 20). The Atlantic’s David Frum proposed (in a tweet, dated March 14) that someone “should stake…out” a Russian Embassy concert in memory of the Red Army Choir that perished in a plane crash and “photograph who attends.” More important political figures are making their weighty contributions to the plague. For a disagreement in the senate, John McCain accused his fellow Republican Rand Paul of “working for Vladimir Putin.” And the new US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, declared, “We should never trust Russia.” This diplomatic axiom would invalidate decades of US arms-control agreements with Moscow. (Had Haley a wit, or any qualification for her position, she might simply have quoted President Ronald Reagan: “Trust, but verify.”)
Cohen then moves to even larger, more ramifying issues. The pivot, or foundational allegation, of the search for Russia’s American “puppets” is that Putin ordered the hacking of the DNC and dissemination of e-mails found there in order to undermine Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and abet Trump’s. For this, not one single fact has yet been presented, still only “assessments” based on purported motivations in the Kremlin. Nor is there any political or historical logic for this foundational allegation. The historical interpretation of Putin’s thinking, motives, and policies over more than 25 years—from his shock over the end of the Soviet state, it is said, and his reaction to protests to Moscow in 2011, to his overweening “hatred of Hillary”—is worse than reductionist. It deletes virtually every significant factor—personal, political, social, economic, international—in Putin’s leadership since 2000. And yet, it is offered by an array of “respectable” media outlets, the Democratic Party, and by Comey himself, as an explanation of Putin’s “attack on our democracy,” and one he is now undertaking against “our allies.” As bad as the history is—anti-history, really—the forensic evidence, Cohen repeats, is even worse: There is still none. (If and when any is presented, we should, of course, evaluate it, but not before there is actually something verifiable to evaluate.)
Nonetheless, Putin—or his Russia—is widely accused of having committed an “act of war” against America, an attack, we also heard in Congress and from an array of establishment media, comparable to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Lest anyone think the present danger is any less than was that of Soviet Russian Communism, we have The Washington Post’s formulation of “the red menace of Vladimir Putin’s Russia” and the assurance that “we were attacked by Russia” (Dana Milbank, March 21). The logic inherent in this most reckless allegation seems clear. At a minimum, the already dangerous US Cold War against Russia must become even harsher, and thus more perilous. But this logic, as it ramifies, might also mean the necessity of actual war, conceivably nuclear war, against Russia. (Such a possibility is certainly being pondered in high Moscow circles.) Challenging this logic is already being decried as “pro-Russian” and “Putin apologetics.” Cohen wonders how many influential Americans, if any, will now stand publicly against it.
Is this guy kidding? Auto delete.
Fuckheads, and I mean that nicely because you’re at least on here,
there’s such a thing as the October Surprise, it’s one of the most generic parts of our election cycle in the final months of campaigns, Wikileak dnc and podesta emails were nothing more than a fucking october surprise like any other
Yet they want to convince you just because it’s a normal october surprise like any other, the Russians did it.
Could it not have been a pissed off Dnc Bernie supporter acting as a wikileak whistleblower, like some of us think?
@FLY I would give your floor speech 100 “likes” if it were possible.
Partisan idiots waving their political talking points like a badge of honor, while ignoring the facts of the big picture, are plaguing society.
What amazes me, is how low somewhat distinguished news sites have fallen to shill for the old regime and print complete horseshit stories as fact.
Do they have no shame? I use to criticise Fox News for hysterical and low quality journalism/news. Now it plagues CNN/WaPo/NYT and even seeped into places like Bloomberg/Buisness Times/WSJ.
Yeah but it still assumes “russian interference”
The public needs to be more informed of psyop
I somewhat wish against it because they’re so dumb they don’t deserve it
Probucks – shouldnt be surprising, it’s a structural battle for control of the us, and trump represented a major piercing and unexpectedly, anyone with critical thinking could have known or did know that control over media would escalate, Wapo became financially allied with amazon/globalists & cia, Cnn always establishment, Fox always decent with oreilly, megyn, talking point hannity
It looks like Painter cuts his hair with a flowbee. Either that or he is getting the drunk lady at Supercuts.
I was not aware that the Bush’s butt, hurt sooo much. Extra: “he will not divide us”!
Typing my tl;dr reply. I appreciate your patience.
Just look at that Igor monster fuckhead. Use your God given ability. It is called sight.
Well first, your response to me is very content-rich, so I’m going to have to address it a section at a time. I agree that in order to prove that Trump was directly involved in the hacks, one would have to present a very simple link that you have laid out. Link Trump to Russia, and then link Russia to Wikileaks. However, it was never my intent to definitively link these three parties, and I don’t think anyone without a security clearance can do so, either. So yes, I agree with your “pro tip!” Your absurd demand that I, a gin-sodden bear, definitively lay it out is most certainly beyond my reach, as it is a task worthy of an independent counsel and a bipartisan Congressional committee. But that isn’t the point. The reason that I have been bugging you like a “faggot” for the last 24 hours is to remind you that you can’t prove that these links don’t exist. You’re really just attacking the people who want to investigate Trump (the Democrats), as opposed to most of the Congressional Republicans who want to protect their seats in power by not digging for the truth. Such digging would piss off Trump, who would take a break between Mar-a-Lago vacations to rally his base against them in the next Congressional primary (whether he would or not remains to be seen, but it’s the threat that matters). As an example of this shameless fealty, look at how fast that lapdog Nunes ran to the White House when he thought he had some information that Trump (whom he is ostensibly supposed to be investigating) wouldn’t like.
As it stands, the first link (Trump to Russia) is circumstantial, and according to Rep. Schiff, possibly more. “And I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now. … I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial, and is very much worthy of investigation.” LINK: http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/ Since neither you nor I know exactly what this evidence is, you can’t prove that Trump isn’t involved.
The second link, between Wikileaks and Russia: it seems as if it wouldn’t make sense for Assange to have an official relationship with the Kremlin, because that would undermine Wikileaks’ credibility, and cast it as another propaganda arm. Not that there isn’t some friendly affiliation with Wikileaks and Putin. The first time that I’m aware of Assange’s public “involvement with Russian government” (those are air quotes) was his own show in 2012 on RT, the Russian propaganda channel. Putin controls RT content and messaging, but it’s not as if Assange on that channel is tantamount to being an agent in the GRU. Data to Wikileaks is encrypted and anonymous. “I would not want to suggest this anything more than a potential hypothesis … I’m pretty close to the position that WikiLeaks is acting as an arm, as an agent, of the Russian federation.” And he plainly says he doesn’t have proof of it. (March 8 interview with Jake Tapper on CNN)
I think we can accept the premise that the leaks (and much of the psyops) came from Russian actors acting at Putin’s behest. Right? The entire intelligence community signed off on that already, and I assume that is not a point of contention between us. But why would Russia even bother to hack Podesta’s emails right before the election if it had no way of disseminating the information? Just checking out his recipes? Assange would have to be an idiot not to realize the DNC hacks came from Russia. Whatever Assange’s motives are, they are not “transparency.” If Democrats want to “undermine” WikiLeaks by emphasizing this point, I say go for it. Most of his efforts involve publishing information from western democracies. China and North Korean emails? Not so much.
But the really weak point of your post above is that “Any of the action by people other than Trump are immaterial.” That is a philosophical difference between us, but to me that is a laughable statement, as if Trump were somehow free of any responsibility of vetting and subsequently appointing his staff. Manafort was a loud and proud Trump campaign manager. (“nobody should underestimate how much Paul Manafort did to get this campaign to where it is right now.” – Newt Gingrich, August 2016). Anyone like Manafort, with a history of working for pay at the behest of Russian oligarchs (Yanukovych and Deripaska), and accused of laundering blood money from Ukraine, who worked as a campaign manager for Trump, ought to be a pertinent subject of investigation when one is investigating collusion of the Trump campaign with Russia. I can’t believe I even had to type that sentence.
No one is concerned about Saudi Arabia’s involvement with Hillary because guess what, she’s not in office. Amazing how that Saudi Arabia and Clinton aren’t in any news cycles except your rant rotation. Guess who is in office? Trump. And which adversary is Trump possibly associated with? Russia. And have no doubt, Russia is America’s adversary. Putin is interested in an insular, nationalist White House, with less presence on the international stage; the dissolution of NATO; and his dream, the White House approving his invasion of Crimea. Putin wants to expand his autocratic sphere of influence, and that means weakening the ability of a liberal West to fight it.
Anyway, I really appreciate your gracious and gentlemanly invitation to present my point of view, and contest your opinions on your own blog!
(That was Gen. Hayden, fmr CIA Director, in the March 8 Tapper interview. Wish there were an edit button.)
Boooo
All I see is speculation. No evidence, at all.
And you can’t give Hillary a pass just because she lost, when she stirred up all this shit to begin with out of thin air. That, sir, is an attempt at misdirection.
I would argue talking about Hillary in March of 2017, in Fly’s context, is misdirection.
You talk to much.
Yeah.
Beejeezus
you left-guys or pro-hillaries or anti-donalders are just brainwashed that russia must have done something and/or russia must be an enemy. you’re forgetting that the wikileaks didn’t really have a massive substantial effect on vote totals. it’s a canard that even if russia hacked the election (i never believed for a second that they did) that hrc’s victory was actually changed because of it. also, The deeper and more resonating info from the october email leaks was largely only consumed by us alt-ers. I, at the time knew and was slightly miffed it wasn’t really reaching mainstream or bigger audiences. Anyone pro-hrc or anti-thetrump largely saw it as witch hunting, and dismissed it as purely smear attack tactics, rendering it generally ineffective in voter conversion.
YOU ARE NOT THINKING
YOU ARE NOT USING LOGIC
AND YOU REALIZE RUSSIA MIGHT BE RIGHTFULLY PISSED WE (OBAMA/GLOBALISTS) PISSED IN THEIR POND IN SYRIA, JUST, IN GENERAL?
You said, “The reason that I have been bugging you like a “faggot” for the last 24 hours is to remind you that you can’t prove that these links don’t exist.”
So tell us idiots how one goes about proving something that doesn’t exist.
Exactly my point, Bob. Thanks.
The fuck out of here. Give me the quick rundown. I’m not reading that shit.
You know, I am embrace free speech here. I’d even let one of you lefties blog for the site if you had it in you.
What a job OA did on nailing SNAP, unreal!
I wish this site would just get back to talking about the market. You all sound like my 70 year old parents with all these conspiracy theories.
Fine. Short version:
The Trump campaign is under criminal investigation. They might find something.
Your assertion that th Russia story is 100% fake is pure speculation on your part. You can’t prove shit, just as I can’t prove the collusion between Trump-Russia-Assange exists.
Have a nice day.
The Trump campaign is under criminal investigation. Thanks for the laugh. The criminals (leaking classified intel, among other criminal acts, i.e. false flags – 9/11…) are conducting criminal investigation of Trump. Are you even able to see the hilarity of that statement? The Deep State (CIA/NSA/FBI/etc.) are the criminals breaking law left and right to advance their zionist ideology.
As a Canadian outsider looking at this issue I find it astounding that nobody is talking about the content of the emails and what they say about the corruptness of the DNC. Instead, somebody from the obviously corrupt party totally deflects the criticism, not by denying the evidence but rather by claiming that the leak was part of some Russian anti-Hillary plot. And half the fucking country believes it? WTF!