Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Election

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby 0_0 » Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:47 pm



remember this press conference from 18 october 2016 when obama was still condident trump was gonna lose?


QUESTION
Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to ask you about the election. Donald Trump is telling his supporters that the election is rigged and asking them to monitor certain areas on Election Day. Are you worried the results of the election may be distrusted?

BARACK OBAMA
One of the great things about America's democracy is we have a vigorous, sometimes bitter political contest and when it's done, historically, regardless of party, the person who loses the election congratulates the winner, who reaffirms our democracy and we move forward.

That's how democracy survives because we recognize that there's something more important than any individual campaign. And that is making sure that the integrity and trust in our institutions sustains itself. Because democracy, by definition, works by consent, not by force. I have never seen, in my lifetime or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place. It's unprecedented. It happens to be based on no facts; every expert, regardless of political party, regardless of ideology, conservative or liberal, who has ever examined these issues in a serious way, will tell you that instances of significant voter fraud are not to be found, that -- keep in mind, elections are run by state and local officials, which means that there are places like Florida, for example, where you've got a Republican governor, whose Republican appointees are going to running and monitoring a whole bunch of these election sites. The notion that somehow if Mr. Trump loses Florida, it's because of those people that you have to watch out for, that is both irresponsible and, by the way, doesn't really show the kind of leadership and toughness that you want out of a president. If you start whining before the game's even over, if whenever things are going badly for you and you lose, you start blaming somebody else, then you don't have what it takes to be in this job because there are a lot of times when things don't go our way or my way. That's OK, you fight through it, you work through it, you try to accomplish your goals.

But the larger point I want to emphasize here is that there is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even -- you could even rig America's elections, in part, because they are so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. There is no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time.

And so I'd invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.And if he got the most votes, then it would be my expectation of Hillary Clinton to offer a gracious concession speech and pledge to work with him in order to make sure that the American people benefit from an effective government. And it would be my job to welcome Mr. Trump, regardless of what he's said about me or my differences with him on my opinions, and escort him over to the Capitol, in which there would be a peaceful transfer of power. That's what Americans do. That's why America is already great. One way of weakening America, making it less great, is if you start betraying those basic American traditions that have been bipartisan, and have helped to hold together this democracy now for well over two centuries.
playmobil of the gods
0_0
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:13 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:53 pm

Dems release status report on Russia probe

House Intelligence Committee Democrats, led by Rep. Adam Schiff, released their own status report on the committee's findings in the Russia investigation. The report highlights a partial list of key witnesses that the Committee has yet to contact or interview. The Dems announced that they plan to issue a full report detailing their findings soon.

Why it matters: The report adds that Republicans on the committee "refused to interview" key witnesses including Reince Priebus, Stephen Miller and Sean Spicer. Republicans announced on Monday that they found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Read the full report here.

https://democrats-intelligence.house.go ... ndices.pdf






Trump Misleads on Russia Hacking
By Eugene Kiely

Posted on July 6, 2017 | Updated on July 7, 2017

On the eve of his first meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, President Donald Trump made some questionable claims about the U.S. intelligence community’s finding that Russia hacked into U.S. political organizations to interfere in the 2016 presidential election:

Trump said the computer hacking “could have been other people and other countries.” There is no evidence for that. U.S. intelligence has named only Russia as the culprit. A Jan. 6 report based on the work of three intelligence agencies said Putin “ordered” a broad “influence campaign” to help elect Trump.
Trump claimed former President Barack Obama “did nothing” from August to Nov. 8 about Russia meddling in the election. That’s wrong. Among other things, Obama spoke to Putin about the issue in September, and his administration worked with state officials from mid-August until Election Day to prevent voting systems from being hacked.
The president made his remarks during a joint press conference with Polish President Andrzej Duda in Warsaw on July 6. Trump made the stop in Poland on his way to a Group of 20 summit meeting in Germany, where he is scheduled to meet with Putin on July 7.

‘Other Countries’?
Hallie Jackson of NBC News asked the president if he would “once and for all, yes or no, definitively say that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.” He gave a less-than-definitive answer.

Trump, July 6: I think it was Russia. And I think it could have been other people and other countries. It could have been a lot of people interfered. I’ve said it very simply. I think it could very well have been Russia but I think it could very well have been other countries, and I won’t be specific. But I think a lot of people interfere. I think it has been happening for a long time. It has been happening for many, many years.

There is no evidence that other countries were involved in the cyberattacks.

The Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on Oct. 7, 2016, that said the U.S. intelligence community is “confident” that hacks into the email systems of the Democratic Party and its officials were directed by “Russia’s senior most officials.” The U.S. intelligence community includes 17 separate intelligence agencies.

“Such activity is not new to Moscow — the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there,” the statement said. “We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”

After the election, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a declassified report on Jan. 6 that went even further. That report said that “Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump” and that “Putin ordered an influence campaign” to help Trump and damage his opponent, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

The 25-page report was “drafted and coordinated” among three intelligence agencies — the CIA, FBI and the National Security Agency — based on “intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies.”

Among other things, the report said, Russian military intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee computers from July 2015 to June 2016 and then used WikiLeaks, DCLeaks.com and “Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker,” to publicly release hacked emails and documents. The cyberattacks and public release of hacked material were part of larger “Russian propaganda efforts” to hurt Clinton and help Trump, the report said.

“Russia’s state-run propaganda machine — comprised of its domestic media apparatus, outlets targeting global audiences such as RT and Sputnik, and a network of quasi-government trolls — contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences,” the report said. “State-owned Russian media made increasingly favorable comments about President-elect Trump as the 2016 US general and primary election campaigns progressed while consistently offering negative coverage of Secretary Clinton.”

In sworn testimony before the Senate intelligence committee on June 8, former FBI Director James Comey said there should be no confusion that Russia interfered with the election.

Comey, June 8: There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did with purpose. They did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts. It was an active measures campaign driven from the top of that government. There is no fuzz on that. It is a high confidence judgment of the entire intelligence community and the members of this committee have seen the intelligence. It’s not a close call. That happened. That’s about as unfake as you can possibly get. It is very, very serious, which is why it’s so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. This is about America, not about a particular party.

Of course, this isn’t the first time that Trump has questioned U.S. intelligence on Russia. He did so before and after winning the election, sometimes in the same way as he did at his Warsaw press conference.

After the election, Trump issued a statement on Dec. 9 that compared U.S. intelligence on Russia’s election meddling to U.S. intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. At his press conference in Poland, Trump again raised the issue of WMDs. He said “everybody was 100 percent sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction,” but faulty intelligence “led to one big mess.”

And, as he did in Poland, Trump told Time magazine in a Nov. 28, 2016, interview: “It could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.”

But no evidence to date has emerged that China or any other country was involved.

Update, July 7: Two House members – a Republican and a Democrat – said they have seen no evidence that any country other than Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

CNN’s John Berman asked Rep. Jim Himes in a July 6 interview: “[H]ave you seen any evidence that any other country besides Russia tried to meddle in the 2016 election?” Himes, a Democratic member of the House intelligence committee, responded, “None. None.”

Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said in a July 7 interview on MSNBC that the intelligence reports and briefings that he has received show “very clear and convincing evidence that it was a nation state attack by Russia.”

Share The Facts
Donald Trump
President of the United States

Claimed the computer hacking of U.S. political organizations during the 2016 presidential election “could have been other people and other countries.”
Press conference in Warsaw, Poland – Thursday, July 6, 2017
SHARE READ MORE


Obama ‘Did Nothing’?
Even though he continues to question the U.S. intelligence community’s findings, Trump criticized Obama for doing “nothing” about Russia’s attempts to influence the election.

Trump, July 6: Now, the thing I have to mention is that Barack Obama, when he was president, found out about this in terms of if it were Russia, found out about it in August. Now the election was in November. That’s a lot of time. He did nothing about it. Why did he do nothing about it? He was told it was Russia by the CIA, as I understand it. It was well reported. And he did nothing about it. They say he choked. Well, I don’t think he choked. I think what happened is he thought Hillary Clinton was going to win the election and he said, “Let’s not do anything about it.” Had he thought the other way he would have done something about it.

Trump is referring to a Washington Post story — “Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault” — that said Obama received a CIA report in early August that detailed Putin’s “direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race.” The story said the CIA “captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump.”

The Post story detailed the internal debate within the Obama administration on what action to take against Russia.

Washington Post, June 23: It took time for other parts of the intelligence community to endorse the CIA’s view [on Putin’s objectives]. Only in the administration’s final weeks in office did it tell the public, in a declassified report, what officials had learned from [CIA Director John] Brennan in August — that Putin was working to elect Trump.

Over that five-month interval, the Obama administration secretly debated dozens of options for deterring or punishing Russia, including cyberattacks on Russian infrastructure, the release of CIA-gathered material that might embarrass Putin and sanctions that officials said could “crater” the Russian economy.

It wasn’t until Dec. 29 that Obama announced that he would impose sanctions on Russia for interfering in the election. At the time, Trump criticized the sanctions. “It’s time for our country to move on to bigger and better things,” Trump said in a statement.

There are certainly Democrats who believe that Obama didn’t do enough to alert the public about the extent of Russia’s meddling in the election. But Trump goes too far when he — repeatedly — says that Obama “did nothing about it.”

So, what did Obama and his administration do from early August until Election Day on Nov. 8?

Obama answered that question during a Dec. 16 press conference when he was asked about the “perception that you’re letting President Putin get away with interfering in the U.S. election.” At the time, the president had yet to impose sanctions, which would not come for nearly two more weeks.

Obama, Dec. 16: At the beginning of the summer, we’re alerted to the possibility that the DNC has been hacked, and I immediately order law enforcement as well as our intelligence teams to find out everything about it, investigate it thoroughly, to brief the potential victims of this hacking, to brief on a bipartisan basis the leaders of both the House and the Senate and the relevant intelligence committees. And once we had clarity and certainty around what, in fact, had happened, we publicly announced that, in fact, Russia had hacked into the DNC.

That public announcement was made, as we said earlier, in a statement by the Department of Homeland Security and DNI on Oct. 7. But that announcement competed for public attention with other major breaking news in that same 24-hour news cycle: The Washington Post published a story and video of lewd comments that Trump made about women while talking with Billy Bush, then of “Access Hollywood.”

In addition to the Oct. 7 announcement, Obama also said that he confronted Putin about the hacking at a G-20 summit in September.

Obama, Dec. 16: And so in early September, when I saw President Putin in China, I felt that the most effective way to ensure that that didn’t happen was to talk to him directly and tell him to cut it out, and there were going to be some serious consequences if he didn’t. And, in fact, we did not see further tampering of the election process. But the leaks through WikiLeaks had already occurred.

WikiLeaks began to release hacked emails on July 22 — about two weeks before Obama had been briefed by the CIA on Putin’s direct role in the hacking. That damage was already done, so the Obama administration turned its attention to securing the nation’s voting systems.

Obama said his “principal goal leading up to the election” was to prevent Russia from hacking into voting systems and tampering with registration rolls and ballots. That was accomplished through the Department of Homeland Security, and it started at about the time that Obama first learned in mid-August about Putin’s desire to help Trump win the election.

On Aug. 15, then-Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson held a conference call with members of the National Association of Secretaries of State and other election officials. A readout of the call said, “While DHS is not aware of any specific or credible cybersecurity threats relating to the upcoming general election systems, Secretary Johnson reiterated that DHS, the Election Assistance Commission, NIST, and DOJ are available to offer support and assistance in protecting against cyber attacks.” He also said that the department “would be examining whether designating certain electoral systems as critical infrastructure would be an effective way to offer this support.”

The designation of “critical infrastructure” would have given states “priority in terms of the assistance we give on cyber security,” Johnson testified at a June 21 House intelligence committee hearing on Russia’s meddling. Other sectors designated as “critical” include the defense, energy and financial sectors, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Many state officials were “resisting the idea of a designation to be critical infrastructure,” Johnson testified.

On Aug. 29, two weeks after Johnson’s conference call with election officials, the Washington Post reported that hackers were targeting voter registration systems in Arizona and Illinois. The story said, “[T]he FBI alerted Arizona officials in June that Russians were behind the assault on the election system in that state.”

On Sept. 15, the Election Assistance Commission issued security tips for securing voter registration databases. A day later, Johnson issued a statement that warned about attacks on voter registration data.

“In recent months we have seen cyber intrusions involving political institutions and personal communications,” Johnson’s statement said. “We have also seen some efforts at cyber intrusions of voter registration data maintained in state election systems.”

On Oct. 1, Johnson issued another statement that warned about attacks on voting-related systems, including a few successful attacks. “In recent months, malicious cyber actors have been scanning a large number of state systems, which could be a preamble to attempted intrusions,” the statement said. “In a few cases, we have determined that malicious actors gained access to state voting-related systems. However, we are not aware at this time of any manipulation of data.”

The statement urged states to seek the department’s help to secure their voting data and equipment. “So far, 21 states have contacted us about our services,” the statement said. By Oct. 10, that number had risen to 33 states, the department said.

“I can tell you for certain that, in the late summer, fall, I was very concerned about what I was seeing, and this was on my front burner all throughout the pre-election period in August, September, October, and early November — to encourage the states to come in and seek our assistance,” Johnson testified. “And I’m glad that most of them, red and blue, did.”

In the end, there was no evidence that votes were changed, Johnson told the House committee.

Trump — as Democrats have done — can question whether the Obama administration did enough. That’s an opinion. But Trump is wrong to say Obama “did nothing” from early August to Nov. 8. In addition to directly raising the issue with Putin, Obama’s administration worked with state officials to secure voting machines and issued a statement identifying Russia as the state actor behind the cyberattacks.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/07/trump ... a-hacking/
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby 0_0 » Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:02 pm

slad you can hear and see (using your own ears and eyes) obama saying at a pressconference from october i just linked above that "no serious person would believe you can even rig american elections" (off course this was at a time when p much everyone was confident trump was gonna lose) but if you'd rather believe anonymous intelligence agencies reports from long after the fact that at that time in fact obama was doing everything he could to stop putin's evil hacking of the election, off course you are very free to do so
playmobil of the gods
0_0
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:13 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:07 pm

A Russian-born businessman with ties to President Donald Trump claims to have been a spy working with American intelligence for more than 20 years, according to a statement his spokesman said he provided to government investigators.

Everything you need to know about Felix Sater
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40670



Felix Sater, businessman linked to Trump, claims to have been U.S. spy
By REBECCA MORIN 03/12/2018 05:21 PM EDT

A Russian-born businessman with ties to President Donald Trump claims to have been a spy working with American intelligence for more than 20 years, according to a statement his spokesman said he provided to government investigators.

Felix Sater said in the statement that he “provided extraordinary assistance to our government involving serious matters of National Security, posing tremendous risks to my safety and the safety of my family.”


Sater has been drawn into the investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, which are being spearheaded by special counsel Robert Mueller and several congressional committees, because of his apparent ties to potential Trump business deals in Russia. In emails that were reported by the Washington Post last year, Sater appeared to try to convince Trump in 2015 to develop a Trump Tower in Moscow and to visit Russia.

He also alleged that he could convince Russian President Vladimir Putin to say “great things” about Trump, the Post reported.

But in his statement, which was first reported by Buzzfeed, Sater — who once went to prison over a bar fight and later struck a deal with the U.S. government to avoid jail time in an unrelated incident — said he had been working for U.S. agencies since the age of 31.

He said he “provided crucial intelligence information and assistance to numerous U.S. national security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies," listing a wide range of services such as providing personal satellite telephone numbers for Osama bin Laden in the 1990s.

He also claimed to have provided information on Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2011 attacks and on North Korean military operatives. Buzzfeed said it was able to confirm some of these exploits; POLITICO has not.


“I was honored to have been given the opportunity to serve my country, as well as the chance to redeem myself, both of which I enthusiastically embraced,“ Sater said in the statement. “Till the day I die, I stand ready to serve my country that I love, God Bless America.“

Sater told Buzzfeed he was still involved in business and had emailed the Trump Organization in 2015 in hopes of helping with a deal. But, he told the news organization, he did not actually know Putin.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/ ... ter-457013
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby 0_0 » Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:17 pm

isn't it ironic how in october 2016, before trump won, obama characterizes claims of rigged elections as: irresponsible, undermining democracy, a betrayal of american values, something only a weak sore loser would do and simply whining because rigging american elections is basically impossible?
Last edited by 0_0 on Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
playmobil of the gods
0_0
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:13 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:18 pm

Roger Stone Keeps Changing His Story About WikiLeaks

“It’s not Grimm’s fairy tales, it’s Stone’s fairy tales.”

DAN FRIEDMANMAR. 14, 2018 3:05 PM



Roger Stone arrives in the Capitol to speak with the House Intelligence Committee on September 26, 2017.Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Congressional Quarterly/Newscom via ZUMA Press)

Roger Stone’s WikiLeaks story appears to be crumbling amid new revelations.

The longtime Trump adviser told the House intelligence committee last year that he had exaggerated just a few weeks earlier when he described using a backchannel to communicate with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, Mother Jones has learned. Stone told the committee his claim of a backchannel to Assange was “a bit of salesmanship.”

For those attempting to track Stone’s evolving stories, this revelation means he has now backed away from the account he gave last year that his backchannel to Assange was New York radio show host and comedian Randy Credico. Stone’s new version came after Credico told Mother Jones and others that he did not pass information between Assange and Stone. “He’s an inveterate liar,” Credico said in an interview. “It’s not Grimm’s fairy tales, it’s Stone’s fairy tales.”

Around the time the intelligence committee subpoenaed Credico after Stone named him as the backchannel, Stone pressed Credico not to contradict his claims, Credico told Mother Jones. “He said, ‘Just go along with it,’” Credico said. Credico later asserted his Fifth Amendment rights and declined to talk to the panel.

More problems with Stone’s accounts came Tuesday when the Washington Post reported that Stone told one confidante in spring 2016 that Assange had obtained emails that would damage Democrats. That conversation allegedly came before public reports that hackers had penetrated the Democratic National Committee and the email account of a top Clinton campaign official. The Post also said that Stone had told another former Trump adviser, Sam Nunberg, that he had met with Assange in 2016. Stone now says that claim was a joke and notes he never left the country that year. (Assange is confined in Ecuador’s Embassy in London.)

These and other issues with Stone’s statements about his WikiLeaks contacts suggest that the self-described showman is adjusting his story as he navigates between his thirst for attention and his desire to avoid prosecution.
These and other issues with Stone’s statements about his WikiLeaks contacts suggest that the self-described showman is adjusting his story as he navigates between his thirst for attention and his desire to avoid prosecution. The inconsistencies raise the questions of whether any of Stone’s claims about his information about stolen Democratic emails are true.

Stone has spent much of the past year trying to walk back his boasts during the 2016 presidential campaign in which he claimed advance knowledge of the release of the Democratic emails by WikiLeaks—emails that US intelligence agencies believe Wikileaks received from Russian hackers.

While speaking at a Tea Party rally on August 8, 2016, in Florida, Stone said he had “communicated with” WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange about the group’s plans to release damaging material on Clinton close to election day. On August 21, 2016, Stone tweeted that Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta would soon face “his time in the barrel.” When WikiLeaks released thousands of Podesta’s hacked emails in October, Stone’s tweet appeared suspiciously prescient.

Stone has acknowledged contacts with Gufficer 2.0, a online persona suspected of serving as a front for Russian intelligence, but insisted his contacts were inconsequential. Last month, he admitted exchanging Twitter messages with WikiLeaks in October 2016 but described them as insignificant and having occurred only after the Podesta emails were released.

Stone later said that his statement about Podesta relied on reports alleging that the Clinton campaign chief had his own Russia connections. (The reports related to clients of the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying and public relations firm Podesta founded with his brother Tony in 1988.) As for having inside knowledge, Stone said he never communicated directly with Assange, but drew on public information, including a June 12, 2016 interview in which Assange said that he planned to release hacked Clinton emails. Stone said he also asked a journalist, whom he later identified as Credico, to confirm Assange’s claims.

“I have referred publicly to this journalist as an ‘intermediary,’ ‘go between’ and ‘mutual friend,’” Stone said in a 47-page prepared statement he shared with reporters ahead of his House intelligence committee interview on September 26, 2017. “All of these monikers are equally true.”

Stone had refused to identify his alleged ‘go between’ in the committee interview. But he relented in an October 2017 letter to the committee, portions of which were obtained by Mother Jones.

Here’s what one of Stone’s lawyers, Grant Smith, told the committee in the letter: “Mr. Stone concedes that describing Credico as a go-between or intermediary is a bit of salesmanship for his InfoWars audience.” (Infowars is far-right media organization, infamous for pushing conspiracy theories. Stone writes for the site and appears on its radio show.) “Mr. Credico never said he knew or had any information as to source or content of the material,” Smith wrote. He said however that Credico accurately confirmed Assange’s claims were true.

“Roger made more of it than it was. He used ‘backchannel,’ which implies a conversation; but it was nothing like that at all,” said one source familiar with Stone’s account. “There was no conversation.”

Stone told Credico ‘no one would believe him’ if he lied.“
Stone also said in a March 9 post on his website that he had exaggerated. “When I spoke of a backchannel to WikiLeaks,” Stone wrote, “I was probably over-dramatizing the role of progressive talk show host, comic, impressionist, and activist Randy Credico.”

Stone claimed in his September statement to the House intelligence committee and in his follow-up letter that he had asked Credico about Assange’s claim to have Clinton emails after noticing that Credico had interviewed Assange on his radio show.

But David Corn, the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones, and Michael Isikoff, the chief investigative reporter for Yahoo News, report in their book Russian Roulette that Stone’s timeline has problems. Credico said he never spoke to Assange before August 25. That is 17 days after Stone first publicly said he had “communicated” with Assange.

Stone’s lawyer, Smith, argued in an email that this timeline is irrelevant because “Credico was long acquainted and associated with members of Assange’s legal team and that they communicated often.” In his March 9 post, Stone suggested Credico could have obtained information through Margaret Kuntser, an attorney who has worked with WikiLeaks. Kunster has declined to comment.

Credico said that when Stone asked him about Assange, he confirmed nothing and merely told Stone to check Assange’s public statements. “I wasn’t a backchannel,” Credico said.

While Stone was in touch with the House intelligence committee last fall, Credico said Stone was eager to ensure that the talk show host backed Stone’s story. If Credico contradicted Stone’s timeline regarding their contacts, “no one is gonna believe you,” Stone said, according to Credico.

Stone did not respond to requests for comment.

Smith, Stone’s attorney, denied that Stone had tried to influence Credico’s account or potential testimony. “Mr. Stone never urged, nor would ever urge, Mr. Credico to do anything other tell the truth if questioned by authorities,” Smith said. “Stone told Credico ‘no one would believe him’ if he lied.”

“Mr. Stone continues to maintain that Credico was a confirming source that Wikileaks had, and would publish, nonspecific material on Hillary Clinton,” Smith said. “Back channel, intermediary, or confirming source, there is no inconsistency.”
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... wikileaks/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby 0_0 » Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:26 pm

roger stone keeps changing his stories about wikilieaks because hes a lying narcissist & self aggrandizing fraud who had no real connection to wikileaks at all

see here the super underwhelming communication that has been used as evidence for a connection:

Image
playmobil of the gods
0_0
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:13 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:40 pm

Sam Nunberg was under oath when he testified before the grand jury

another person testified under oath when he testified before the grand jury

......we shall see how Roger handles himself when he is under oath testifying before the grand jury ...that is if Mueller even needs is testimony


Roger Stone reportedly claimed he knew about a pivotal moment in Russia's hacking campaign months before the public found out

Mar. 13, 2018, 10:44 AM 855
Roger Stone 4 Hollis Johnson
Two associates reportedly claim the longtime Republican strategist Roger Stone told them had had learned from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange that the organization possessed a batch of hacked Democratic emails months before the public became aware of the fact.
Former Trump campaign adviser Sam Nunberg and a second unnamed associate both say Stone claimed to have met with Assange in 2016.
Stone has repeatedly said he has never met with or directly spoken to Assange, and that he had no communication with WikiLeaks.
Stone told Business Insider on Tuesday that he told Nunberg he was meeting with Assange in jest and had no recollection of having another conversation about Assange with anyone else.
He said Nunberg had called him three times to tell him the special counsel Robert Mueller was "out to get" him.
Two associates of Roger Stone, a longtime Republican strategist and informal adviser to President Donald Trump, said he was aware that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was in possession of a trove of hacked Democratic emails months before they became public, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

According to the report, Stone told an unnamed associate in the spring of 2016 that he had learned from Assange that WikiLeaks had obtained the hacked materials that would later become a thorn in the side for the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Former Trump campaign adviser Sam Nunberg also told The Post that the special counsel Robert Mueller had asked him about a conversation during which he said Stone told him he had met with Assange.

Stone pushed back on parts of The Post's story in a lengthy statement to Business Insider on Tuesday morning, saying Nunberg's statement to the outlet does not amount to evidence against him. He said he had "no advance notice of the content, source or timing of the WikiLeaks publication of any material," and that he never met, spoke with, or emailed Assange.

"Now you have to understand when you worked with Sam would call and text you over and over," Stone said. "Sam said in a interview that he spoke to Steve [Bannon] 30 times a day. One major reporter said he called her eight times late one night."

Nunberg told CNN last week that he would not cooperate with Mueller because "they want me to testify against Roger. They want me to say that Roger was going around telling people he was colluding with Julian Assange."

Stone said Tuesday that he told Nunberg in jest that he was meeting with Assange as a way to get him off the phone in 2016, and that he did not recall having any conversation about Assange with a second person.

"Sam asked if I had plans for the weekend — and I said I was 'flying to London to have dinner with Julian Assange.' A joke and hung up," Stone said.

"My passport shows I never left the country in 2015 or 2016 and surveillance cameras for [Assange] at the Ecuadorian Embassy show he never left there and I never arrived there," Stone said.

He said that Nunberg had called him three times to warn him Mueller was "out to get" him, and then asked Stone to admit he told 58 people that he had traveled to London to meet with Assange, "which of course is not true."

"I told ONE person ... who was too intense to figure out it was a joke," he said.

He also said that he did not receive any of the hacked documents or pass them onto Trump or the Trump campaign, and that he did not "collaborate" with WikiLeaks at any point during the campaign. Stone did not respond to follow-up questions about his communications with WikiLeaks and the timing of his tweets during the campaign.

A timeline emerges

julian assange
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange makes a speech from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy, in central London, Britain February 5, 2016.
Thomson Reuters
Stone sent out a series of tweets in 2016 that raised questions about whether he knew in advance that WikiLeaks was planning on publishing Clinton campaign manager John Podesta's hacked emails.

"Wednesday @HillaryClinton is done," Stone tweeted on October 1, 2016.
Two days later, he tweeted: "I have total confidence that @wikileaks and my hero Julian Assange will educate the American people soon #LockHerUp."
On October 12, Stone admitted to having "back-channel communications" with Assange because they had a "good mutual friend."
Stone told the House Intelligence Committee last September that he had never "said or written that I had any direct communication with Julian Assange and have always clarified in numerous interviews and speeches that my communication with WikiLeaks was through the aforementioned journalist." Stone was referring to radio host Randy Credico, who Stone said acted as an intermediary between himself and Assange.
WikiLeaks also tweeted in March 2017 that it had "never communicated" with Stone.
But The Atlantic reported last month that Stone was in direct contact with the group in the weeks leading up to the November 2016 election.

"Since I was all over national TV, cable and print defending wikileaks and assange against the claim that you are Russian agents and debunking the false charges of sexual assault as trumped up bs you may want to reexamine the strategy of attacking me," Stone reportedly wrote on October 13.

"We appreciate that," WikiLeaks replied. "However, the false claims of association are being used by the democrats to undermine the impact of our publications. Don't go there if you don't want us to correct you."

Two days later, on October 15, Stone reportedly wrote back: "Ha! The more you 'correct' me the more people think you're lying. Your operation leaks like a sieve. You need to figure out who your friends are."

On November 9, 2016 — the day after Trump won the election — WikiLeaks replied, "Happy? We are now more free to communicate."
http://www.businessinsider.com/roger-st ... ?r=UK&IR=T


Trump advisor Roger Stone claimed contact with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in 2016, two associates say

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-p ... story.html
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby 0_0 » Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:43 pm

anyway, to recap:

prior to trump victory: opining that the elections might be rigged is whining, irrisponsible and a betrayal of american values

post trump victory: opining that the elections might not be rigged is whining, ignorant and you're basically a commie
playmobil of the gods
0_0
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:13 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:48 pm

The June 9 Trump Tower Limited Hangout

emptywheelJanuary 17, 2018

I did two podcasts this week where I elaborated on my theory that the current story we have about the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting is just a limited hangout, a partial story that I suspect serves to hide a later, more damning part of the meeting:

Intercepted, with Jeremy Scahill and John Sipher (starting just before 50 minutes)
Bloggingheads, with Robert Wright
I first started suspecting that the current story — that Natalia Veselnitskaya pitched a request for Magnitsky sanctions relief in exchange for … almost no dirt on Hillary — was a limited hangout as I tracked Scott Balber’s repeated heavy-handed attempts to craft a story that could explain the known emails and documents.

I want to lay out my evolving, more developed theory here.

For weeks, Russians had been offering emails in exchange for meetings

The Trump campaign first learned about “dirt” on Hillary in the form of thousands of emails on April 26. The day after learning of those emails, George Papadopoulos sent two emails to Trump campaign staffers, that may have reflected a discussion of an early quid pro quo: some meetings — meant to lead to one between Trump and Putin — in exchange for emails.

To Stephen Miller, Papadopoulos wrote, “Have some interesting messages coming in from Moscow about a trip when the time is right.” To Corey Lewandowski, it appears he asked for a phone call “to discuss Russia’s interest in hosting Mr. Trump. Have been receiving a lot of calls over the last month about Putin wanting to host him and the team when the time is right.”

That same day, he sent his Russian handler, Ivan Timofeev, an email saying that the first major Trump foreign policy speech he helped author was a “signal to meet.” The speech spoke, in part, about making a great deal with Russia.

I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia from a position of strength only is possible, absolutely possible. Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries.

Some say the Russians won’t be reasonable. I intend to find out. If we can’t make a deal under my administration, a deal that’s great — not good, great — for America, but also good for Russia, then we will quickly walk from the table. It’s as simple as that. We’re going to find out.


Over the course of the next month, Papadopoulos sent a Timofeev invitation for a meeting to move towards setting up a Putin-Trump meeting via email to Lewandowski (on May 4), to Sam Clovis (on May 5, after which they spoke by phone), and to Paul Manafort (on May 21), with additional back and forth in between.

Who is the Crown Prosecutor?

Around that time in late May, Natalia Veselnitskaya met with long-time Trump associate Aras Agalarov and mentioned her efforts to help Denis Katsyv in his legal fight with Bill Browder (note, elsewhere Veselnitskaya claimed she normally keeps her clients’ business compartmented, but claims not to have done so in this case) and to lobby against the Magnitsky sanctions. That’s where, according to Veselnitskaya, the idea of connecting her with Don Jr first came about, though she doesn’t remember who came up with the idea.

Around the end of May 2016, during a conversation with a good acquaintance of mine, being my client, Aras Agalarov on a topic that was not related to the United States, I shared the story faced when defending another client, Denis Katsyv, about how terribly misled the US Congress had been by the tax defrauder William Browder, convicted in Russia, who, through his lobbyists and his close-minded rank-and-file Congress staffers, succeeded in adopting the Act in the name of a person whom Browder practically hardly ever knew.

I considered it my duty to inform the Congress people about it and asked Mr. Agalarov if there was any possibility of helping me or my colleagues to do this. I do not remember who of us was struck by the idea that maybe his son could talk about this with Donald Trump, Jr., who, although a businessman, was sure to have some acquaintances among Congress people. After my conversation with Mr. Agalarov, I prepared a reference in case it would be necessary to hand over the request – to support the hearings in the Subcommittee in the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs as to the Magnitsky’s and Browder’s story, scheduled for mid-June.


The timing of this meeting is important. We know that the date on the document alleged to be the “dirt” handed to Don Jr — one that she claims she prepared “in case it would be necessary to hand over” is May 31. Either this meeting happened before May 31 (which is when Veselnitskaya described it to have taken place), or the document was instead drawn up exclusively for lobbying purposes (which would be unsurprising, but would be inconsistent with the testimony that uses the talking points to prove the meeting was only about Magnitsky sanctions). Elsewhere she gets sketchy about the date of the document, and produced as it was by Agalarov lawyer Scott Balber, we can’t be sure about the forensics of the document.

The reason the date is important, however, is that, in pitching the Trump Tower meeting on June 3, Rob Goldstone told Don Jr that Emin Agalarov’s father met with “the Crown Prosecutor” that morning.

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin. [my emphasis]


Admittedly, any discrepancy on dates might be due to the game of telephone going on — Aras to Emin to Goldstone. But if the meeting in question really did happen on June 3, then it significantly increases the likelihood that “Crown Prosecutor” is not at all a reference to Veselnitskaya (who claims to have met with Agalarov earlier), as has been claimed, but is to someone else, dealing a different kind of dirt.

Spoiler alert: I suspect it is not a reference to her.

In his version of this story, Goldstone says he only played this broker role reluctantly.

“I remember specifically saying to Emin, you know, we probably shouldn’t get involved in this. It’s politics, it’s Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Neither of us have any experience in this world. It’s not our forte. I deal with music. You’re a singer and a businessman.”


Don Jr seems to have shown no such reluctance. He emailed back 17 minutes later saying, “if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.” He says that, in spite of the claim he made in his testimony that, “I had no additional information to validate what Rob was saying, I did not quite know what to make of his email.” Whatever Don Jr expected it to include on June 3, he may have gotten a clearer sense of what it was on June 6, when he spoke to Emin in a phone call set up in about an hour’s time, just as Emin got off the stage.

In fact, Don Jr had three “very short” phone calls in this period, but he’s getting forgetful in his old age and so doesn’t remember what transpired on them.

My phone records show three very short phone calls between Emin and me between June 6th and 7th. I do not recall speaking to Emin. It is possible that we left each other voice mail messages. I simply do not remember.


Veselnitskaya did not get her visa to come to the US until June 6. That’s the day when Goldstone, referencing Don Jr’s earlier instructions on timing, followed-up about a meeting.

Let me know when you are free to talk with Emin by phone about this Hillary info.

Ike Kaveladze’s still unexplained late inclusion in the meeting

Goldstone was still finalizing the meeting time on June 8 at 10:34 AM. But sometime, presumably after the time on June 7 at 6:14PM, when Don Jr told Goldstone that Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner would also attend, fellow Agalarov employee Ike Kaveladze got invited, though without Veselnitskaya ever learning why. At some unidentified time, Kaveladze called an associate of Goldstone’s and learned that the meeting would be about discussing “dirt” on Hillary Clinton — the same word Papadopoulos’ handlers had used.

Scott Balber, Kaveladze’s attorney, told The Daily Beast that before Kaveladze headed from Los Angeles to New York for the meeting, he saw an email noting that Kushner, Manafort, and Trump Jr. would all be involved. He thought it would be odd for them to attend the meeting, so he called Beniaminov before heading to New York. Both Beniaminov and Kaveladze have worked with the Agalarov’s real estate development company, the Crocus Group.

Balber said that Beniaminov told Kaveladze that he heard Rob Goldstone— Emin Agalarov’s music manager—discuss “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. It’s never become completely clear what kind of “dirt” the Russians were talking about.


Having learned of a meeting dealing dirt that included Don Jr, Kushner, and Manafort, Kaveladze got on a plane and flew to NYC.

According to Veselnitskaya’s very sketchy account, she got an email finalizing the meeting when she arrived in NYC on June 8 — an email that was also CC’ed to Kaveladze. She and Kaveladze spoke by phone sometime that day, and met sometime before the meeting.

With those present at the meeting, Samochernov, Kaveladze, and Akhmetshin, I spoke about the meeting on the day it was to be held, possibly, I mentioned it the day I arrived in New York when speaking with Kaveladze by phone, but I do not have exact information about it.

[snip]

We got acquainted first by phone when I was in Moscow. I met him personally first on June 9 shortly before the meeting.

[snip]

We had a phone call and met at a café, I do not remember where and at what café. I told him briefly what I knew about the Browder case, about the Ziffs and their possible support when lobbying his interests in the United States.

Like Don Jr’s memory of his phone calls with Emin, Veselnitskaya claims to have forgotten what got said in that phone call with Kaveladze.

Competing versions of the meeting

Which brings us to June 9.

We don’t know what Kaveladze’s schedule was. We do know that on the morning of June 9 — before lunch, which is when Veselnitskaya said Akhmetshin first got involved — Veselnitskaya asked Goldstone if she could bring Akhmetshin, whom she claimed had just “arrived that day in New York for an evening performance of Russian theatre stars.” Goldstone responded a half hour later, “Please bring them with you and meet Ike for your meeting at 4PM today.” (The copy of the email publicly released does not include the CC to Kaveladze that Veselnitskaya said was included.)

As I laid out in this post, Veselnitskaya says she arrived at the meeting with her translator, Kaveladze, and Akhmetshin, was met by Goldstone there, and brought to a board room where Don Jr and Manafort were already present.

I came to the meeting with Anatoly Samochornov, a translator, Irakly Kaveladze, a lawyer of my client who helped to arrange for the meeting, Rinat Akhmetshin, my colleague who was working with me on the Prevezon case. We were met by a big, stout man who introduced himself as Rob and escorted us on the elevator to the boardroom. I saw two men in the boardroom – one of them introduced himself as Donald Trump Jr., while the other did not introduce himself. Another young man entered the boardroom a little later and left it shortly afterwards. I found out much later that the two unidentified gentlemen were P. Manafort and J. Kushner.

According to Veselnitskaya, Kaveladze was introduced — to the extent he was — as “Ike.” Remember that he attended the 2013 dinner celebrating the Agalarov-brokered deal to bring Miss Universe to Moscow, meaning at least some in the Trump camp should know him.

Veselnitskaya’s account seems to line up with Jared Kushner’s, which basically has him arriving late, staying for about 10 minutes of Veselnitskaya’s discussion of adoptions (though he seems to be claiming not to be present for any discussion of Magnitsky sanctions), then asked his assistant to give him an excuse to leave.

I arrived at the meeting a little late. When I got there, the person who has since been identified as a Russian attorney was talking about the issue of a ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children. I had no idea why that topic was being raised and quickly determined that my time was not well-spent at this meeting. Reviewing emails recently confirmed my memory that the meeting was a waste of our time and that, in looking for a polite way to leave and get back to my work, I actually emailed an assistant from the meeting after I had been there for ten or so minutes and wrote “Can u pls call me on my cell? Need excuse to get out of meeting.” I had not met the attorney before the meeting nor spoken with her since. I thought nothing more of this short meeting until it came to my attention recently. I did not read or recall this email exchange before it was shown to me by my lawyers when reviewing documents for submission to the committees. No part of the meeting I attended included anything about the campaign, there was no follow up to the meeting that I am aware of, I do not recall how many people were there (or their names), and I have no knowledge of any documents being offered or accepted.


Jared claims not to know who was at the meeting, which is somewhat credible given that he arrived after introductions.

For some reason, Goldstone holds out the claim this meeting started by talking about Democratic campaign donations then moved to sanctions.

Goldstone tells me that he only half-listened to the presentation from Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer, as he checked emails on his phone. But he insists, as Trump Jr has done, that the meeting ended awkwardly after she switched tack from discussing Democratic funding to US sanctions legislation and Moscow’s retaliatory policy that restricts Americans from adopting Russian children. “It was vague, generic nonsense,” Goldstone says.

[snip]

“Within minutes of starting, Jared said to her, ‘Could you just get to the point? I’m not sure I’m following what you’re saying,’ ” Goldstone says.

It was then that she started talking in detail about the provisions of the Magnitsky legislation and adoptions, he says. “I believe that she practised a classic bait-and-switch. She got in there on one pretext and really wanted to discuss something else.”


Don Jr’s memory of the meeting is somewhat different. Not only doesn’t he remember Akhmetshin’s presence at all, but he remembers Manafort arriving after the visitors were already in the conference room (mind you, I don’t consider this a significant discrepancy). And he definitely remembers adoptions being discussed at the same time as the sanctions.

As I recall, at or around 4 pm, Rob Goldstone came up to our offices and entered our conference room with a lawyer who I now know to be Natalia Veselnitskaya. Joining them was a translator and a man who was introduced to me as Irakli Kaveladze. After a few minutes, Jared and Paul joined. While numerous press outlets have reported that there were a total of eight people present at the meeting, I only recall seven. Because Rob was able to bring the entire group up by only giving his name to the security guard in the lobby, I had no advance warning regarding who or how many people would be attending. There is no attendance log to refer back to and I did not take notes.

After perfunctory greetings, the lawyer began telling the group very generally something about individuals connected to Russia supporting or funding Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton or the Democratic National Committee. It was quite difficult for me to understand what she was saying or why. Given our busy schedules, we politely asked if she could be more specific and provide more clarity about her objective for the meeting. At that point, Ms. Veselnitskaya pivoted and began talking about the adoption of Russian children by U.S. citizens and something called the Magnitsky Act.

Until that day, I had never heard of the Magnitsky Act and had no familiarity with this issue. It was clear to me that her real purpose in asking for the meeting all along was to discuss Russian adoptions and the Magnitsky Act. At this point, Jared excused himself from the meeting to take a phone call.


Despite some minor differences in choreography, thus far the differences in the stories are not that substantial.

That changes, though, in the descriptions of how the meeting ended.

Don Jr claims he said that Trump was a private citizen so could do nothing to help.

I proceeded to quickly and politely end the meeting by telling Ms. Veselnitskaya that because my father was a private citizen there did not seem to be any point to having this discussion.


Goldstone claims something similar — that Don Jr told Veselnitskaya she should talk to Obama’s Administration, not the future Trump one.

“Don Jr ended it by telling her that she should be addressing her concerns to the Obama administration, because they were the ones in power.”

But in an an interview with Bloomberg that Veselnitskaya disavowed in her statement to SJC, she said that Don Jr suggested he would reconsider the sanctions “if we came to power.


“Looking ahead, if we come to power, we can return to this issue and think what to do about it,’’ Trump Jr. said of the 2012 law, she recalled. “I understand our side may have messed up, but it’ll take a long time to get to the bottom of it,” he added, according to her.


The extra details in the contemporaneous record as interpreted by Glenn Simpson

As far as we know, there’s only one contemporaneous record of this meeting: the notes that Manafort — whom Veselnitskaya claimed “closed his eyes and fell asleep” during the 20 minute meeting — took on his phone. Glenn Simpson was asked to comment on Manafort’s notes in his Senate testimony. Some of what he describes confirms these public accounts: the early reference to Browder, the other reference to Juliana Glover, the reference to adoptions.

MR. DAVIS: These are the meeting notes from 3 the June 9th meeting at Trump Tower. These are Mr. Manafort’s notes or they’re contemporaneous.

BY THE WITNESS:

A. I could tell — obviously you know who Bill Browder is. Cyprus Offshore, Bill Browder’s structure, you know, investment — Hermitage Capital, his hedge fund, set up numerous companies in Cyprus to engage in inward investment into Russia, which is a common structure, both partially for tax reasons but also to have entities outside of Russia, you know, managing specific investments. I can only tell you I assume that’s what that references. I don’t know what the 133 million —

[snip]

A. I can skip down a couple. So “Value in Cyprus as inter,” I don’t know what that means. “Illici,” I don’t know what that means. “Active sponsors of RNC,” I don’t know what that means. “Browder hired Joanna Glover” is a mistaken reference to Juliana Glover, who was Dick Cheney’s press secretary during the Iraq war and associated with another foreign policy controversy. “Russian adoptions by American families” I assume is a reference to the adoption issue.


While Simpson doesn’t recognize the reference, in addition to the passing reference to Cyprus shell companies, the notes allegedly used for the meeting explain the 133 million reference.

In the period of late 1999 to 2004, two companies – Speedwagon Investments 1 and 2, registered in New York, and owned by the said U.S. investors, acting through three Cypriot companies, Giggs Enterprises Limited, Zhoda Limited, Peninsular Heights Limited illegally acquired more than 133 million Gazprom shares in the amount exceeding $80 million in the name of the Russian companies Kameya, Lor, Excalibur, Sterling Investments.


But there seems to be more extensive reference to Cyprus (the laundering of money through which, of course, Manafort is himself an expert; it features centrally in his indictment).

And none of the accounts of the meeting seem to explain Manafort’s half-written “illicit,” nor does “Active sponsors of RNC” appear anywhere.

So there appear to be two things in Manafort’s notes that aren’t explained by the several accounts of the meeting: RNC support (elsewhere attributed to the reference to Ziff brothers’ political donations, something which Manafort might independently know) and, most intriguingly, “illicit” (as well, as perhaps, the more central focus on Cyprus than reflected in the talking points).

Who left the conference room when?

This brings me to the question of who left the conference room when.

According to the LAT, Mueller’s team seems newly interested in an exchange between Ivanka, Veselnitskaya, and Akhmetshin, which attests to Ivanka’s awareness — whatever her spouse’s and brother’s ignorance — of Akhmetshin’s presence.

Investigators also are exploring the involvement of the president’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, who did not attend the half-hour sit-down on June 9, 2016, but briefly spoke with two of the participants, a Russian lawyer and a Russian-born Washington lobbyist. Details of the encounter were not previously known.

It occurred at the Trump Tower elevator as the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and the lobbyist, Rinat Akhmetshin, were leaving the building and consisted of pleasantries, a person familiar with the episode said. But Mueller’s investigators want to know every contact the two visitors had with Trump’s family members and inner circle.


But it also may suggest that, after arriving with the two Russians, Ike Kaveladze may have stayed on for a bit afterwards.

Which may be backed by another detail in the various accounts of the meeting. Both Don Jr …

She thanked us for our time and everyone left the conference room. As we walked out, I recall Rob coming over to me to apologize
.

And Goldstone claim that the music promoter apologized for the meeting at the end.

As he emerged from the meeting, Goldstone says that he told Trump Jr he was “deeply embarrassed” that it had been an apparent waste of time.


If Goldstone “apologized” for the meeting, as he and Don Jr claim, it suggests Goldstone, at least, stayed behind long enough to say something that would otherwise be rude to say in front of Veselnitskaya. Don Jr’s claim of an apology might provide convenient excuse.

Perhaps most curious among the first-hand accounts is Goldstone’s claim that he thought the 20-30 minute meeting was “dragging on.”

He had not even planned to attend, but was encouraged to stay by Trump Jr. His biggest concern, he says, was that if the meeting dragged on, he would be caught in the notorious Lincoln Tunnel traffic on his journey home.


But her emails

At 4:40 PM, 40 minutes after the meeting started, Trump tweeted what would become one of the most famous exchanges of the campaign, his retort to Hillary Clinton’s taunt that he should delete his Twitter account with this response,

Image

Did you say “dirt” in the form of Hillary emails?

Six days after that meeting, Guccifer 2.0 released the first of the documents stolen by hacking Democratic targets (though note, none of these are known to have come from the DNC, which is the only hack the WaPo reported on the day before; while some have been traced to Podesta’s emails, the others remain unaccounted for).

While I have argued that the specific content in that dump can be explained, in significant part, as an effort to respond to and rebut the claims CrowdStrike and the Democrats made to the WaPo, some of the documents would be particularly valuable in selling the Trump team on the value of any “dirt” on offer. That includes the oppo research on Trump himself (though that was definitely also a response to the WaPo), but also what purports to be a secret policy document stolen from Hillary’s Secretary of State computer, and a document on Hillary’s election plans. Significantly, all three of these documents were among the ones with the altered metadata, in part bearing the signature of Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky.

Image

In short, that first post from Guccifer 2.0 would not only refute the confident claims the Democrats made to the WaPo, but it would provide the Trump camp with a sense of the scope of documents on offer. Within that first week, Guccifer 2.0 would even offer what claimed to be a (heh) “dossier” on Hillary Clinton. (Given my concerns that Russians learned of the Steele dossier and filled it with disinformation, I find it rather interesting that Guccifer 2.0 first advertised this dossier on the same day, June 20, that Steele submitted the first report in his dossier.)

Eerie

If, in fact, there was a second part of this meeting, it seems to be the high level meeting that George Papadopoulos had been working on setting up for weeks, meetings discussed in the context of offering dirt in the form of emails. The Russians laid out a quo — relief of the Magnitsky sanctions — and a week later, provided the first installments of the quid — oppo research from Hillary Clinton.

That would more readily explain why, on June 14, Goldstone would forward this account of the DNC hack to Emin and Ike (but not the other attendees) declaring the DNC hack to be eerie in the wake of what transpired at the meeting.

In one email dated June 14, 2016, Goldstone forwarded a CNN story on Russia’s hacking of DNC emails to his client, Russian pop star Emin Agalarov, and Ike Kaveladze, a Russian who attended the meeting along with Trump Jr., Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Manafort, describing the news as “eerily weird” given what they had discussed at Trump Tower five days earlier.


And that, I suspect, is the real story that Scott Balber has been working so hard to obscure.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/01/17/t ... d-hangout/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby Jerky » Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:53 pm

Gee, I guess that's it then. The President publicly said elections can't be rigged, so I guess they can't be rigged! End of story! Time to go to bed, America! The last word has been spoken!

:wallhead:

Tell me, 0_0. In YOUR opinion... was the election in 2000 "rigged"? How about 2002? 2004? Think it might be possible?

Do you think maybe Obama was referring to the type of rigging that TRUMP was referring to, where he was essentially saying that the vote doesn't matter, that "Washington elites" just make up the results from whole cloth as they see fit? Could THAT be what Obama was talking about?

Also, for a sufficiently dedicated bad actor (like the Kremlin, for instance), Obama's answer serves as more of a series of directions than a safeguard against election tampering ("Alright, so we have to target the state and district levels. Let's go comrades!")

Stop baiting SLAD with silly crap like this.

J.

0_0 » 14 Mar 2018 20:02 wrote:slad you can hear and see (using your own ears and eyes) obama saying at a pressconference from october i just linked above that "no serious person would believe you can even rig american elections" (off course this was at a time when p much everyone was confident trump was gonna lose) but if you'd rather believe anonymous intelligence agencies reports from long after the fact that at that time in fact obama was doing everything he could to stop putin's evil hacking of the election, off course you are very free to do so
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby 0_0 » Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:58 pm

posting a different opinion is not baiting someone. and i dont think obamas speech was silly or irrelevant either. in fact i see your reply as in bad faith.

but anyway, riddle me this jerky: how can obama say in october 2016, just prior to trump winning:

"But the larger point I want to emphasize here is that there is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even -- you could even rig America's elections, in part, because they are so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. There is no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time."

and then now the story is there were allegedly very clear indications of russian hacking all along?
playmobil of the gods
0_0
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:13 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:02 pm

isn't it obvious? I thought it would be obvious by now

Image

I wonder why someone would constantly think this was just all about the "election" .....is it not obvious by now that there are other aspects of this ...like being blackmailed? ...like being married to the Russian Mobs?

is way more about Nov. 8 and if someone does not realize this by now then they are either not paying attention or purposefully ignoring facts
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby norton ash » Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:05 pm

0_0 » Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:43 pm wrote:anyway, to recap:

prior to trump victory: opining that the elections might be rigged is whining, irrisponsible and a betrayal of american values

post trump victory: opining that the elections might not be rigged is whining, ignorant and you're basically a commie


The biggest problem with people like you is that you think that the rest of us are as inflexible and polarized as you are. How many years (decades) have we discussed rigged elections here on RI? Christ.

Anyway, you're a brave soldier standing firm against a tide of overwhelming evidence.
Zen horse
User avatar
norton ash
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:08 pm

now that I am forced to see that quote ....thanks norton ash :)

THIS IS NOT ALL ABOUT RIGGED ELECTIONS!!!!!

someone needs to pay more attention please?
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests