its raining Russian assets

Posted by: chunkstyle

its raining Russian assets - 10/23/19 08:04 PM

Quick, show of hands.

Who agrees with Hillary, that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset?

This is pretty explosive stuff. Active member of the military, actual US congressperson.

What does this mean if Russia can turn someone such as Gabbard to their will?

Are any members of the military or elected officials safe from Slavic compromise.

This is an allegation being made by a former First Lady, NYS Senator, former Secretary of State, Two time Democratic primary candidate, one time Democratic Party presidential nominee.

My two questions would be, how confident are you of the evidence she has given for the charge?
What can be done to secure our representatives brains from Slavic hacking?
Posted by: Greger

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/23/19 09:06 PM

Hillary is still a global power broker so she might learn of things others might never hear.

On the other hand she might have been duped by the Russians into saying that.

We never know anymore do we?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/23/19 11:28 PM

She's confusing the Liberal fantasy narrative, that's for sure.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/23/19 11:35 PM

Let me jump to a conclusion.

Haven't got a clue.

Because she is "softish" on Russia does not inherently mean she is a Russian asset. I mean if "softish" is the qualification for being an asset then we have a Russian asset occupying the WH. While I could not say he is an asset, I can say he is an asset to Putin's agenda.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 12:23 AM

How about the notion that Trump is a fully bought and paid for tool, whereas Tulsi's just ignorant and is maybe only a light duty tool, or not even a tool at all, just an idealist who still thinks we need to just play along with Putin because he's not such a bad guy after all.

Wait a minute...that sounds an awful lot like a tool.
Hmmmmm...
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 12:24 AM

But if Trump was encouraged by Bill and Hillary to get involved in politics and the Podedsta emails revealed the Clinton campaign team was actively encouraging Trumps Republican nomination, how do we know if Hillary isn’t a Russian Dupe. Maybe she’s trying to throw Tulsi under the bus as distraction?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 12:30 AM

Didn’t Tony Podestas company work for Paul Manaforts consultancy that was working for Yanukovych, Putin’s man in the Ukraine?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 12:50 AM

“The Podesta Group was helping Manafort’s company on behalf of a group called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine. That a high-powered Democratic lobbying firm became involved with Manafort, a longtime Republican Washington power broker, might seem curious. The firm became one of Washington's top performing lobbying shops, in terms of revenue, by employing both Democrats and Republicans, which opened up lucrative contracts with Fortune 500 companies such as Walmart. The Podesta Group's chief executive officer is Kimberley Fritts, a veteran GOP political operative....

...In the early 2000s, Tony Podesta pursued contracts with foreign governments, particularly those seeking to break away from Russia. Therein lies the mystery. The Manafort work seemed to be at odds with this mission. The European Center was cited in the Monday indictment as part of a “scheme” by Manafort and Gates to promote their longtime client, the pro-Russian leader Viktor F. Yanukovych, the former Ukrainian president.”

Who is Tony Podesta and why is he under scrutiny in Bob Mueller's Russia investigation?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 12:57 AM

“Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.

Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape.

Clinton’s personal office in New York confirmed that the call occurred in late May, but an aide to Clinton said the 2016 race was never specifically discussed and that it was only a casual chat.”

Washington Post 2015
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 02:11 AM



VOX: The Hillary Clinton-Tulsi Gabbard feud, explained

Hope this helps. smile
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 03:07 AM

Beauchamp seems to think a former State department official meddling in a primary election is less egregious than the candidate calling out Clinton on her BS.

Try Jimmy Dore. More cut and thrust than the limp millionaire hosts pushing the liberal fantasies:

Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 04:26 AM

I am Le Tired of all things Le Clinton, but allow me to ponder the possibility that, if all of this really was a bit of Machiavellian Clinton skullduggery gone horribly wrong, then who do you think really got burned worse, aside from all of us, that is?

Do you think the Clintons got burned worse or Trump?
He's clearly pissed off at her for a lot more than "her damn emails".

What IF it DID start out as a drunken wager between the two?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 04:34 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick


Originally Posted By: Tulsi Gabbard
“Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.”


If that doesn't sound like some Grade A Kremlin titty twisting, I don't know what else would.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 04:44 AM

Just because the Kremlin loves her positions, doesn't mean she works for them. She can be their favorite, without being their asset. I remember back in 2016 when they were supporting Black Lives Matter and setting up rallies for them, at the same time supporting Neo-Nazi rallies at the same time and place. They don't really want to support any candidate as much as to screw with us. I see Trump as their biggest prank. They had all sorts of bots and posts on 4chan/b suggesting young people vote for him for maximum "lulz". (Because it would be a hoot if he won, demonstrating just how stupid "normies" are.)
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 05:37 AM

It does? I’m not schooled enough to tell. How is it evidence of Russian meddling? Thanks
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 05:44 AM

Wow! Just like they did with the panthers in the sixties?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 05:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
I am Le Tired of all things Le Clinton, but allow me to ponder the possibility that, if all of this really was a bit of Machiavellian Clinton skullduggery gone horribly wrong, then who do you think really got burned worse, aside from all of us, that is?

Do you think the Clintons got burned worse or Trump?
He's clearly pissed off at her for a lot more than "her damn emails".

What IF it DID start out as a drunken wager between the two?


No Jeff you misunderstand me. I’m asking you to consider that Clinton herself is a Russian asset. The very fact that she and her team encouraged Trump to get into politics and rooted for his winning the nomination speaks volumes.
She may not be directly controlled by Russia but her actions to elevate Trump certainly benefitted Putin.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 05:58 AM

I think, really, that Clinton is right about a couple of things about Gabbard. It is perhaps because people use the term "asset" differently. In some contexts, "asset" needs to mean, specifically, "working for"; but in other contexts (as, I believe, here) it simply means "useful" - as in, "useful idiot", or "fellow traveler." Gabbard says things that Putin likes, so it is useful to promote her (which, objectively, they have) - NAVEED JAMALI, Newsweek).
Quote:
Russian support of Gabbard does not mean that she is a Russian-directed operative, or that she has ties with or is in contact with Moscow. As I learned during my operational time working against Russian intelligence, the targeting of U.S. persons for recruitment by a foreign intelligence service does not make that person guilty of a crime. The same holds true if Russia seeks to independently aid the Gabbard campaign. Russia may choose to covertly amplify her message by building what may look like organic and grass roots online support for her. They may take some of her talking points—such as, Assad "is not the enemy of the U.S." or that the U.S. is in "a new nuclear arms race"—and work to increase their reach across social media.

While the amplification of controversial viewpoints is a method by which Russia creates division and chaos in our political process, the solution is not to remove Gabbard, silence her, or stop the vigorous debate of far-ranging ideas. Rather, the solution is to recognize these threats and stop Russia from unnaturally amplifying any one message.
As Jamali points out:
Quote:
Russia's success in attacking our democracy is not tied to their ability to recruit Gabbard (or anyone else) to parrot Russian talking points. Rather, their success comes with their ability to influence and manipulate, through amplification, certain messages and candidates that create division. As we saw in 2016, Russia was able to aid Donald Trump by using tailored and manipulated social media campaigns, without even the knowledge or direction of the Trump campaign itself. After all, Russia's goal in 2016 was the delegitimization of our elections; they did not need to coordinate with Trump to make that happen.
This is just Guccifer 2.0; 2.0.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 06:18 AM

I think I see how the game is played. If you have a position on, say, foreign policy that would also be in Russia’s interest, you may not have a handler but you still provide yourself as an asset.
Does that not support the claim that elevating Trump, as Clinton did, make herself a Putin asset? The biggest asset of them all?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 03:23 PM

"The #Resistance has come up with all sorts of words for such fifth-columnists and deviationists: they are “false-balancers” or “false equivalencers,” “neo-Naderites,” “purity-testers,” “both-sidesists,” “whataboutists,” “horseshoe theorists,” “Russia skeptics” or “Russia denialists,” and “anti-anti-Trumpers.” Such heretics are all ultimately seen as being on “team Putin.”

This witch-hunting insanity isn’t just dangerous, it’s a massive breach from reality. Trump’s campaign was a clown show. He had almost no institutional backing. His “ground game” was nonexistent: his “campaign” was a TV program based almost wholly around unscripted media appearances. Trump raised just over half the $1.2 billion Hillary pulled in (making him the first presidential candidate dating back to 1976 to win with a funds deficit). He didn’t prepare a victory speech, for the perfectly logical reason that he never expected to win.

Even if you posit the most elaborate theories of Russian interference (which I don’t, but of course I’m denialist scum), what happened in 2016 was still almost entirely a domestic story, with Trump benefiting from long-developing public rejection of the political establishment."



Libs are losing there minds. Meanwhile they do nothing for anyone but the TV conspiracy oracles, Spook commentariat and the advertisers. They wonder why there's a schism going on in the party.

Rolling Stone's Taibbi
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 03:34 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
I think I see how the game is played. If you have a position on, say, foreign policy that would also be in Russia’s interest, you may not have a handler but you still provide yourself as an asset.
Does that not support the claim that elevating Trump, as Clinton did, make herself a Putin asset? The biggest asset of them all?
The first part... yeah. Think Carter Page, Papadopoulos, Trump. As for the questions... I admit, I don't follow. What's the logic here?
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 03:37 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
I’m asking you to consider that Clinton herself is a Russian asset. The very fact that she and her team encouraged Trump to get into politics and rooted for his winning the nomination speaks volumes.
She may not be directly controlled by Russia but her actions to elevate Trump certainly benefitted Putin.

I'm sure the Clintons encouraged Trump to enter the 2016 presidential race to make fun of him because, as everyone knows, he's a joke.

The Clinton's figured he'd be the easiest one to beat not expecting that racist and bigoted Americans would glum onto his message and propel him to the White House.

Hmm
Posted by: rporter314

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 03:56 PM

Quote:
the Clintons encouraged Trump to enter the 2016 presidential race to make fun of him because, as everyone knows, he's a joke. .... The Clinton's figured he'd be the easiest one to beat not expecting that racist and bigoted Americans would glum onto his message and propel him to the White House.

Ahhh well could be but I will take a different tack.

Remember Mr Trump is a narcissist. I suspect the Clinton's realized this, as any thinking person would based on his actions, and simply did what all knowing people do, which is to appease his ego by telling him how great he is and he should be president. Also as you say, they would realize he is a joke, a caricature of a real person, who would just flounder in a campaign because of his incompetent narcissistic arrogance.

On the flip side you may be right. The Clinton's may have not realized the extent of Republican bigotry. That was their mistake. Had they paid attention to how the Republican base reacted to a black president, they would have had a better idea of who and what they faced.

Does any of that make her a Russian asset? Yes and no. The front end was simply, getting off the phone, and the back end was blowback which has aided the Russians.

My God!! The Russians are everywhere. Good thing I still have my Russian books. I think I'll brush up and who knows .... they may make me governor of Texas.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 05:45 PM

You said:

"..people use the term "asset" differently. In some contexts, "asset" needs to mean, specifically, "working for"; but in other contexts (as, I believe, here) it simply means "useful" - as in, "useful idiot", or "fellow traveler."

Hillary and Bill encouraged Trump to get into the race. Hillarys team favored his nomination as the republican nominee.
Trump becomes POTUS, a desirable outcome for the Slavs.

In your description of different contextual assets, which type of context would Hillary be considered and asset? The useful idiot, fellow traveler context or the 'working for' asset?

Trump is in the white house. His first act was to allow the Ivans in the oval office remember? That is good for Russia, no?
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 05:59 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
[quote] ...The Clinton's may have not realized the extent of Republican bigotry. That was their mistake. Had they paid attention to how the Republican base reacted to a black president, they would have had a better idea of who and what they faced.

Given how the TBaggers aka Trump Supporters are not squawking about Trump's deficit, we now know for sure, that TBaggery was all about a black president.

Hmm
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 06:02 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
My God!! The Russians are everywhere.

Indeed they are. They make up a large portion of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles, a large portion of San Franciciso Bay Area peninsula, and a large portion of the south Puget Sound in Seattle-Tacoma metro area.

Hmm
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 06:18 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick


The Clinton's figured he'd be the easiest one to beat not expecting that racist and bigoted Americans would glum onto his message and propel him to the White House.

Hmm


Thats another point Rick because Hillary knew exactly how bigoted the voters could be. As a matter of fact, she was criticized in the 2008 Democratic nomination race against Obama for using racists dog whistling as a tactic to help push up her poll numbers with the racist element out there. She's been playing on white racial fears since she was first lady. Ya'll remember super predators:



Trumps campaign literally started by stoking those same racial fears and rode that strategy right into the Oval Office. He seems to have borrowed a page from Hillary's book and wasn't afraid to show it:


Coincidence? I think NOT!!!

Posted by: rporter314

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/24/19 08:55 PM

Yeah that was too obvious and I believe provable back in 2010. Nothing like continuing corroboration.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/25/19 12:52 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
I am Le Tired of all things Le Clinton, but allow me to ponder the possibility that, if all of this really was a bit of Machiavellian Clinton skullduggery gone horribly wrong, then who do you think really got burned worse, aside from all of us, that is?

Do you think the Clintons got burned worse or Trump?
He's clearly pissed off at her for a lot more than "her damn emails".

What IF it DID start out as a drunken wager between the two?


No Jeff you misunderstand me. I’m asking you to consider that Clinton herself is a Russian asset. The very fact that she and her team encouraged Trump to get into politics and rooted for his winning the nomination speaks volumes.
She may not be directly controlled by Russia but her actions to elevate Trump certainly benefitted Putin.


So you don't think she ever considered the possibility of winning?
That's what you have to believe for that to work.
You have to believe that she secretly wanted Trump to win.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/25/19 12:55 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
I’m asking you to consider that Clinton herself is a Russian asset. The very fact that she and her team encouraged Trump to get into politics and rooted for his winning the nomination speaks volumes.
She may not be directly controlled by Russia but her actions to elevate Trump certainly benefitted Putin.

I'm sure the Clintons encouraged Trump to enter the 2016 presidential race to make fun of him because, as everyone knows, he's a joke.

The Clinton's figured he'd be the easiest one to beat not expecting that racist and bigoted Americans would glum onto his message and propel him to the White House.

Hmm


But they are former Arkansans, how could they not have taken that demo into account?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/25/19 12:59 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: rporter314
My God!! The Russians are everywhere.

Indeed they are. They make up a large portion of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles, a large portion of San Franciciso Bay Area peninsula, and a large portion of the south Puget Sound in Seattle-Tacoma metro area.

Hmm


And a large portion of WeHo. The Fairfax District is pretty much WeHo with a little bit of Hollywood.
They also make up a large portion of Pasadena, BH, and Brentwood.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/25/19 04:12 PM




Tulsi is not running for re-election to the House in 2020. There is a better option for District 2, a Hawaii State Senator by the name of Kaiali'i Kahele. He's a much better option than Tulsi Gabbard to represent District 2 in the House.

smile
Posted by: Greger

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/25/19 05:14 PM

So Ms. Gabbard, who hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning a single state in the primaries, has decided to dump her political career in favor of tilting at the presidential windmill.

Planning a book deal? A lobbying position? A seat on the board of a Russian oil conglomerate?

We'll know soon enough.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/25/19 07:27 PM

Maybe she knows candidates can convert their campaign funds to personal income after they lose, so she's just looking for a payday.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/25/19 11:19 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Maybe she knows candidates can convert their campaign funds to personal income after they lose, so she's just looking for a payday.



You sure about that?
I don't theenk so, Quicks Draw.



Of course, with the FEC currently castrated due to funding issues, there isn't much they can do if someone actually DID decide to "buy a yacht".

"I'll do the 'thinnin' round here Baba Looey, and don't yew fergit it!"
Posted by: jgw

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/26/19 06:31 PM

How about this. Hillary actually loves Tulsi but Tulsi, currently, is not doing real well. So, they COLLUDED! The plan is simply, they agreed that Tulsi was simply not getting the attention she deserved so Hillary there the collusion with Russia at her. It worked! Now folks are writing and talking about Tulsi! Entertainers have known, for a very long time, that attention is the answer to popularity and that applies to politicians too. Our Dear Leader, the jackass Trump, knows, and practices this and, now, so does Tulsi.

I am personally awaiting the next Tulsi bomb with a bit of excitement!
Posted by: jgw

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/26/19 06:38 PM

To be fair. Corporations can write off bunches of stuff that are interesting:
private jets
politics
trips to exotic climes
pretty models that have skills
etc.

So, why can't a politician buy a yacht, and have his picture using said yacht to travel around meeting supporters. This would, of course, be better if it was a national election or for a position in a coastal state. Might even be cheaper than hotels!
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/27/19 01:50 PM

There’s many ways to fleece fundraising dollars, one of which was the skimming of state fundraising dollars into the campaign coffers of the Democratic presidential nominee while starving the state campaign committees of much needed monies.
It’s one of the many high grade professional Grifts that go on with each party and is rarely reported about or investigated in the news.

IMO, it was one of the key reasons for losing the 2016 election, that and running an extremely unsatisfying candidate.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: its raining Russian assets - 10/27/19 01:53 PM

Hillary Victory Fund