Review of the Russian collusion narrative

[rogue06]

Starting the new year the National Review offers an evaluation of the investigation emphasizing the New York Times' role in helping to push it and how they've changed their tune.

Source: As the Dossier Scandal Looms, the New York Times Struggles to Save Its Collusion Tale

The totality of the evidence undermines the Times’ collusion narrative

"Trump Adviser’s Visit to Moscow Got the F.B.I.’s Attention." That was the page-one headline the New York Times ran on April 20, 2017, above its breathless report that “a catalyst for the F.B.I. investigation into connections between Russia and President Trump’s campaign” was a June 2016 visit to Moscow by Carter Page.

It was due to the Moscow trip by Page, dubbed a "foreign policy adviser" to the campaign, that "the F.B.I. obtained a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" in September — i.e., during the stretch run of the presidential campaign.

You’re to be forgiven if you’re feeling dizzy. It may not be too much New Year’s reverie; it may be that you’re reeling over the Times’ holiday-weekend volte-face: "How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt."

Seven months after throwing Carter Page as fuel on the collusion fire lit by then-FBI director James Comey’s stunning public disclosure that the Bureau was investigating possible Trump campaign “coordination” in Russia’s election meddling, the Gray Lady now says: Never mind. We’re onto Collusion 2.0, in which it is George Papadopoulos — then a 28-year-old whose idea of résumé enhancement was to feign participation in the Model U.N. — who triggered the FBI’s massive probe by . . . wait for it . . . a night of boozy blather in London.

What’s going on here?

Well, it turns out the Page angle and thus the collusion narrative itself is beset by an Obama-administration scandal: Slowly but surely, it has emerged that the Justice Department and FBI very likely targeted Page because of the Steele dossier, a Clinton-campaign opposition-research screed disguised as intelligence reporting. Increasingly, it appears that the Bureau failed to verify Steele’s allegations before the DOJ used some of them to bolster an application for a spying warrant from the FISA court (i.e., the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court).

Thanks to the persistence of the House Intelligence Committee led by Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.), the dossier story won’t go away. Thus, Democrats and their media friends have been moving the goal posts in an effort to save their collusion narrative. First, we were led to believe the dossier was no big deal because the FBI would surely have corroborated any information before the DOJ fed it to a federal judge in a warrant application. Then, when the Clinton campaign’s role in commissioning the dossier came to light, we were told it was impertinent to ask about what the FBI did, if anything, to corroborate it since this could imperil intelligence methods and sources — and, besides, such questions were just a distraction from the all-important Mueller investigation (which the dossier had a hand in instigating and which, to date, has turned up no evidence of a Trump-Russia conspiracy).

Lately, the story has morphed into this: Well, even if the dossier was used, it was only used a little — there simply must have been lots of other evidence that Trump was in cahoots with Putin. But that’s not going to fly: Putting aside the dearth of collusion evidence after well over a year of aggressive investigation, the dossier is partisan propaganda. If it was not adequately corroborated by the FBI, and if the Justice Department, without disclosing its provenance to the court, nevertheless relied on any part of it in a FISA application, that is a major problem.

So now, a new strategy to prop up the collusion tale: Never mind Page — lookee over here at Papadopoulos!

But that’s not what they were saying in April, when the collusion narrative and Democratic calls for a special prosecutor were in full bloom.

Back then, no fewer than six of the Times’ top reporters, along with a researcher, worked their anonymous "current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials" in order to generate the Page blockbuster. With these leaks, the paper confidently reported: "From the Russia trip of the once-obscure Mr. Page grew a wide-ranging investigation, now accompanied by two congressional inquiries, that has cast a shadow over the early months of the Trump administration" [emphasis added].

Oh sure, the Times acknowledged that there might have been a couple of other factors involved. "Paul Manafort, then [i.e., during Page’s trip] Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, was already under criminal investigation in connection with payments from a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine." And "WikiLeaks and two websites later identified as Russian intelligence fronts had begun releasing emails obtained when Democratic Party servers were hacked."

But the trigger for the investigation — the "catalyst" — was Page.

Somehow, despite all that journalistic leg-work and all those insider sources, the name George Papadopoulos does not appear in the Times’ story.

Now, however, we’re supposed to forget about Page. According to the new bombshell dropped on New Year’s Eve by six Times reporters, it was "the hacking" coupled with "the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign" — Papadopoulos — "may have had inside information about it" that were "driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired."

It seems like only yesterday — or, to be more precise, only late October, when he pled guilty to a count of lying to the FBI in the Mueller probe — that Mr. Papadopoulos was even more obscure than the "once-obscure Mr. Page." Now, though, he has been elevated to "the improbable match that set off a blaze that has consumed the first year of the Trump administration."

But hey, if you’re willing to hang in there through the first 36 paragraphs of the Times’ nearly 3,000-word Papadopoulos report, you’ll find the fleeting observation that "A trip to Moscow by another adviser, Carter Page, also raised concerns at the F.B.I."

You don’t say!



Source

© Copyright Original Source

The story continues at the link above.

[Zymologist]

I only have one question: Does Putin pay by the word?

[Cow Poke]

[One Bad Pig]

Are you trolling for Jerks?

[Mountain Man]

Liberals are desperate to keep this story alive. It's their only hope of stopping Trump.

[Starlight]

Liberals are desperate to keep this story alive. It's their only hope of stopping Trump.

As a liberal I'm happy for Trump to stay around until 2020 as his historic low approval ratings will greatly assist even incompetent Dems in taking back the house and even senate in 2018, and should give the Dems supermajorities in 2020.

I'm also a bit frightened of what ultra fundy evangelical Mike Pence could do the country in terms of enacting an extreme religious agenda if he were made president.

On the other hand it seems increasingly clear that Trump's administration is very criminal in nature and that Mueller is likely to indict half of it, likely including Trump. (The amusingly shrill denials of reality coming from the right, like the OP, notwithstanding) I believe it's particularly important for nobody to be above the law and I think the US has an unfortunate history (from Nixon to Reagan to Bush W to Wall St) of allowing powerful people to avoid prison for criminal behaviour simply because they are powerful. So I would like to see the guilty punished in this instance to break that trend.

So I'm torn between being happy to see the Dems skate to massive victories in 2018 and 2020 and wanting justice to be done.

[myth]

As a liberal I'm happy for Trump to stay around until 2020 as his historic low approval ratings will greatly assist even incompetent Dems in taking back the house and even senate in 2018, and should give the Dems supermajorities in 2020.

I'm also a bit frightened of what ultra fundy evangelical Mike Pence could do the country in terms of enacting an extreme religious agenda if he were made president.

On the other hand it seems increasingly clear that Trump's administration is very criminal in nature and that Mueller is likely to indict half of it, likely including Trump. (The amusingly shrill denials of reality coming from the right, like the OP, notwithstanding) I believe it's particularly important for nobody to be above the law and I think the US has an unfortunate history (from Nixon to Reagan to Bush W to Wall St) of allowing powerful people to avoid prison for criminal behaviour simply because they are powerful. So I would like to see the guilty punished in this instance to break that trend.

So I'm torn between being happy to see the Dems skate to massive victories in 2018 and 2020 and wanting justice to be done.

As much as I dislike Trump, I doubt he'll be charged with anything. The FBI won't pull the trigger on charging a sitting president unless they've got one heck of a case, and I doubt they're going to find evidence of that quality, even if Trump did something illegal.

The fact that you refer to Pence as an "ultra fundy" is also amusing to me. He's more middle-right in my estimation.

[Cerebrum123]

As much as I dislike Trump, I doubt he'll be charged with anything. The FBI won't pull the trigger on charging a sitting president unless they've got one heck of a case, and I doubt they're going to find evidence of that quality, even if Trump did something illegal.

The fact that you refer to Pence as an "ultra fundy" is also amusing to me. He's more middle-right in my estimation.

I believe Starlight has called Obama "center right" so it's not surprising to see this description of Pence.

[myth]

I believe Starlight has called Obama "center right" so it's not surprising to see this description of Pence.

Obama, center-right? I nearly spat out my drink.

[Cerebrum123]

Obama, center-right? I nearly spat out my drink.

Not surprising, Starlight's comments tend to have that effect on most of us.

[Terraceth]

On the other hand it seems increasingly clear that Trump's administration is very criminal in nature and that Mueller is likely to indict half of it, likely including Trump. (The amusingly shrill denials of reality coming from the right, like the OP, notwithstanding)

I don't see any particular denials of reality. I'll readily admit the possibility he might be sitting on a mountain of evidence and is trying to take things slowly to make sure he entraps the guilty properly, but if so, that information is limited to him and his team as there hasn't been any indication of that. For as much as the liberal media has tried to play the story up, so far the only charges Mueller has brought forward are things that are actually unrelated to any supposed collusion.

[Starlight]

Obama, center-right?

Yes. The fact that the conservatives on this forum don't see that is just another indication of how insanely FAR right you guys are.

As governor of Indiana, Pence led the way in ultra restrictive abortion legislation (including forcing women to bury their fetuses, forcing them to undergo incredibly invasive transvaginal ultrasounds before getting abortions) and iirc was the first state to pass modern anti-gay legislation (dressed up as a 'religious freedom's act).

[Tassman]

I don't see any particular denials of reality. I'll readily admit the possibility he might be sitting on a mountain of evidence and is trying to take things slowly to make sure he entraps the guilty properly, but if so, that information is limited to him and his team as there hasn't been any indication of that. For as much as the liberal media has tried to play the story up, so far the only charges Mueller has brought forward are things that are actually unrelated to any supposed collusion.

Mueller is conducting a bona fide investigation, not engaging in "entrapment", but your use of this term is indicative of your mindset. He might indeed be "sitting on a mountain of evidence", he probably is. Until he has completed his investigation is is premature for the likes of you and the conservatives to second-guess the outcome and declare there is nothing there or that his findings are unrelated to " any supposed collusion". This is just wishful thinking.

[Terraceth]

Mueller is conducting a bona fide investigation, not engaging in "entrapment", but your use of this term is indicative of your mindset.

In what way is me using that term 'indicative of my mindset'? I used that term because my original phrase, "tightens the noose properly," was a little too associated with hanging. I guess it's indicative of the fact I don't like hanging people but I'm not sure how that's relevant.

Apparently you think I was somehow insinuating that he was engaging in entrapment (i.e. the process of inducing someone to commit a crime), but that's not only an utterly bizarre interpretation based on the context, I didn't even write "entrapment."

He might indeed be "sitting on a mountain of evidence", he probably is. Until he has completed his investigation is is premature for the likes of you and the conservatives to second-guess the outcome and declare there is nothing there or that his findings are unrelated to " any supposed collusion". This is just wishful thinking.

If it's premature for people to second-guess the outcome, then it's equally premature for people to assume that it'll result in big indictments against critical members of the Trump administration.

[myth]

Yes. The fact that the conservatives on this forum don't see that is just another indication of how insanely FAR right you guys are.

As governor of Indiana, Pence led the way in ultra restrictive abortion legislation (including forcing women to bury their fetuses, forcing them to undergo incredibly invasive transvaginal ultrasounds before getting abortions) and iirc was the first state to pass modern anti-gay legislation (dressed up as a 'religious freedom's act).

Am I in the Twilight Zone? Do we mean the same thing we using the term "right" in regard to political spectrum in the US? Because I have no idea how you think Obama is center right, implying that he's to the right of center in the US political spectrum (aka slightly conservative).

Check out this Washington Post article, that spends all its time talking about exactly how liberal Obama is. Note, the question in the article isn't whether he's liberal or conservative, but exactly how liberal he is. Apparently the Washington Post didn't ask if he was on the right or left wing because it's exceedingly obvious which side he's on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e131c82440d5

With regard to Mr. Pence, I assume you won't be surprised to hear that I'm for "ultra strict" abortion policies, namely that it should be outlawed, since I'm not a fan of murder. And you'll forgive me if I hesitate to assume your assessment of an "anti-gay legislation" is accurate, seeing as how you're so liberal that you think a liberal president is a flipping conservative.

Edit: The problem with calling Pence and people on this forum "FAR right" is that (in addition to the fact that it's not all that accurate) is that' you're not leaving any room in the labeling vernacular for the people who actually are further right than we are. And believe me, there are plenty of people to the right of the average Twebber.