Words of Advice:

"Never Feel Sorry For Anyone Who Owns an Airplane."-- Tina Marie

"
If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"
Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It.
" -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Friday, April 7, 2017

Putin Might Now Have Buyer's Remorse

The C.I.A. told senior lawmakers in classified briefings last summer that it had information indicating that Russia was working to help elect Donald J. Trump president, a finding that did not emerge publicly until after Mr. Trump’s victory months later, former government officials say.

The briefings indicate that intelligence officials had evidence of Russia’s intentions to help Mr. Trump much earlier in the presidential campaign than previously thought.
The FBI knew of this, as well. Why Director Comey thought it best to go public in October with some bullshit about Hillary Clinton's emails while staying silent about the Russians trying to elect Trump is a damned good question.

So was Trump's Syria strike a move to bury this latest story about Russian involvement in his election? Was Trump hoping that a few dead Russian soldiers might bolster his claim that he is independent of Putin?

Or was it this:

18 comments:

Pretzelogic in Philly, PA said...

I wouldn't be too quick to assume Dictator Putin's regrets just yet. I cross-posted a version of this comment at a few other blogs already last night & this morning (lawyersgunsandmoney et al), so I hope you won't consider this spamming; I just really want to get the word out. And, for what it's worth, Comrade, I did try to post here earlier but was defeated by problems with the comment function.

Syria isn’t actually the point here. Trumpsky doesn’t give a hot squat about Assad, rebels (of any variety) or, frankly, anyone but himself & his immediate family (to the extent that he sees them as an extension of himself).

The key here, as with all things Trumpsky-related, is Russia, Russia, Russia. Tonight’s action should be understood as PRETEXT (I think it was Malcolm Nance who used the word "kabuki" in this context). Russia wants those sanctions lifted. Wants that desperately. This is the primary reason Trumpsky was installed in the White House. Trumpsky, unfortunately (for both his Russian puppet-masters & for us) is a ridiculous idiot. He quickly made lifting the sanctions politically less tenable than ever. Ongoing revelations about the Russian ratfucking with our election have only made that harder still.

Thus, the pretext. Where do we suppose Assad got the chemical weapons he used? From Russia, of course. Trumpsky (after defending Assad as recently as last week) then gets instructed to lob some missiles at a target that will look legit, but not make any real strategic difference on the ground. Got to create the appearance of a “conflict” between Trumpsky & his good pal, the dictator Putin.

Now, send Suckretary of State Tex Drillerson (R – Exxon) to Moscow. Time for the “art of the deal”. What to expect: a dramatic announcement of an arrangement whereby, in exchange for us lifting the sanctions, Putin “helps” us reign in his (other) puppet, Assad. The Trumpsky regime makes a deal, saves the day, avoids a Mid-East war; Trumpsky’s a hero. Greatest President* ever! Poll numbers rise.

This has been the primary end game all along. Trumpsky is made President* & Putin gets the sanctions lifted (& Exxon gets to go ahead with their trillion $ deal with their Russian oil partners).

Quid. Pro. Quo. The fix was in already; all that was required was a pretext to get the US establishment to fall in line. Pay no attention to moose and squirrel.

See treason, say treason. :(

B said...

Pretzelogic: Cute name calling. Kinda childish, but cute.

Ms Misfit: I wonder if Comey knew more about Hillary than the rest of us did, and chose to out her (instead of TheDonald) because he felt she was worse than him? (I don't know, and am simply offering a possible answer to your question)....It may be that he chose to choose the lesser of the two weasels?

Comrade Misfit said...

Then Comey needs to go. Putting out damaging info on one and withholding damaging info on the other because that suits his prejudices is just evil. That wasn't his call to make.

The Constitution does not give the Director of the FBI input on who wins elections. That's our choice, not that of the fucking Feebie Director.

CenterPuke88 said...

Discouraging enough, I came to a similar conclusion as Pretzel this morning. Too neat, too cut and dried. Great, now I'm sounding like Alex Jones...

Pretzelogic in Philly, PA said...

B: clearly more to my comment than merely name calling, but I can understand why you would choose to ignore that.

Comey didn't "out" HRC because, as we already know, there was nothing to "out" her for. As has become increasingly clear, the emails on Weiner's laptop were duplicates of Abadin's emails, deliberately placed there, possibly even by rogue agents in the FBI's NY office who were working in concert with Ghouliani (at least, & possibly other members of the Trumpsky scampaign). In other words, Comey was maneuvered into that as part of the treasonous conspiracy.

We know from Comey's own *sworn testimony* that he (& the former director of the CIA) WANTED to go public about the Trumpsky-Russian connection before the election, but President Obama felt the situation was so serious that it needed to be addressed by all the intel agencies together, & in a bipartisan manner. Unfortunately, when presented with the evidence, Mitch McConman & the other Rape-Public-Con members of the "Gang of 8" refused to cooperate & Obama decided it would be subject to partisan divisiveness if he tried to proceed without them (with hindsight, probably one of his worst decisions).

Keep whistling past this graveyard if you want (& while you can); I take solace in the knowledge that there's no statute of limitations on treason. And it's a capital offense (in this case, arguably also a Capitol offense). History will not judge these fuckers kindly.

B said...

Pretzelogic: your comment has good info. However, really, your message is watered down by the child like name calling it is like a 6th grader having a tantrum. It only impresses other 6th graders. I'm not trying to insult you here. The name calling is immature and makes the message seem to be less valid.

Your point, however, is interesting. Do you really believe that the FBI didn't have enough to prosecute Hillary? They said they did in their statement... But Lynch chose not to. I think that that was the reason that Comey did what he did. It was finally too much to swallow.



Pretzelogic in Philly, PA said...

Enough to indict her?! At no time did the FBI say any such thing. Sigh. You see, THAT'S "fake news". That's why Comey's sworn testimony under oath was completely different from what you're describing. It sounds like your choices of "news" sources are less than accurate or reliable. Perhaps neither fair nor balanced?

Sorry you don't like my style, or appreciate my "name calling". Turns out treason makes me... cranky. Maybe even crankier than usual.

B said...

Fake News: Yep. I got that from the FBI website.

She did it, and they chose not to prosecute because "Intent". Intent never comes into it. The law never mentions intent. Intent doesn't matter.

But Comey DID say she violated the laws:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Had that been anyone else, there would have been prison time. People are in prison for lesser violations of classified materials. But they weren't Hillary.




Question for Ms Misfit: Where was Harry Reid on this subject of the CIA investigation that he was briefed about on Aug 25? Was the info classified? Why did he (and the other 7 senators) keep it secret before the election?


Anonymous said...

B: After reading Comey's statement (thanks for the link), he is clearly saying the opposite of "Had that been anyone else, there would have been prison time." Last I checked, criminal charges would be required to put someone in prison, and he said the FBI was recommending no charges be brought.

From Comey's statement (emphasis by me):

BEGIN-QUOTE

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

END-QUOTE

-- Bob in OK

dinthebeast said...

While I have some bad feelings that Pretzelogic is on to something substantial, I haven't checked it out just yet, so I will just relate something Richard Engel just pointed out: a couple of key differences in this particular situation from what came before, given that we've been bombing Syria regularly for years, even with Tomahawk missiles (which Obama did in 2014), and Assad has repeatedly used chemical weapons, once killing 1,400 at one go, and the death toll is actually closer to a half million than a quarter million.
The first difference is that we switched sides in who we are bombing. We always bombed people who were Assad's enemies before, and now we've bombed his military.
The other difference had to do with why seventy people being hit with Sarin was all of the sudden such an atrocity when none of the carnage that happened before on a much larger scale made any impression on Trump: This time it was on television.

-Doug in Oakland

CenterPuke88 said...

Just wondering how someone who calls President Obama "Barry" argues that someone else is watering down their opinion/facts? I know my use of Donnie is calculated to invoke images of little Donnie Osmond on those old enough to remember...but I don't then accuse others of childish name calling. People in glass houses and all...

B said...

CP: did you read the comment to which I referred?

If you did, then I cannot believe you have to ask. There is a difference between showing some disrespect (such as you and I do) and being 6th grader "cute" with all the names and childish references...over and over and over.

BTW, Barry is his real name....."just call me Barry" was a phrase he used a lot until be suddenly became "Barack" and ran to become a Senator.

3383 said...

Pretzelogic fits as a nym for that poster.

Trump was "installed"? Did Russia also install him as the Republican nominee?

I'm not the first, nor the only one to say this, but Russia had a slight influence at most in the presidential election. Russia had very little to no influence in the elections giving Republicans a majority in both houses of Congress. And if the Democratic Party believes that Russia is why they lost gig, and fail to address real reasons why they were voted out of so many offices, current trends will likely continue.

How about maybe, using basic security with e-mail and computers? Maybe, don't expect all women to vote for a candidate for the sole reason she is also female? Perhaps realize that, although a protest movement has a kernel of truth, some people will resist when they realize the untruth included from it's very genesis ("hands up, don't shoot" and continuing)?

Of course, they DNC may also rely on Trump bringing more people to his level of stupid. That has a good chance of working, but I would rather have blundering Trump than competent Pence.

CenterPuke88 said...

B., the amount of name-calling wasn't my point, the fact that you do it and then lambast someone for doing it more is a bit hypocritical. I read, and enjoyed, Pretzel's comment and felt his characterizations were spot on.

B said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
B said...

Odd, CP88, I thought you were more mature than that.

You certainly have acted more mature than that in the past.

CenterPuke88 said...

Really, B? Sarcasm, satire and gallows humour have seldom been the refuge of the young. The more interesting thing is that you allow your irritation with someone's use of such to deflect from the message being delivered, not a hallmark of the master debater that you seem to consider yourself. Perhaps an honest review of your position is in order, because I fear your doubts are showing.

dinthebeast said...

B: At least nobody's calling anybody a "cuck" here, like they are in the White House...

-Doug in Oakland