portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

media criticism | political theory

U.S. Corporate Media Push Moon-Truther "Trump: Russian Asset Since 1987" Conspiracy Theory

so you thought rAT's latest  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2018/07/436380.shtml "Trump stole immigrant children for extraterrestrial black ops" wasn't enough? Wishing for some more amperage / higher voltage?

Have we got a CT for you, Flat-Earthers.

Donald Trump has been a RUSSIAN ASSET since at least 1987!

How d'ya like them apples?

[Wikipedia] Jonathan Chait is an American commentator and writer for New York magazine. He was previously a senior editor at The New Republic and an assistant editor of The American Prospect. He writes a periodic column in the Los Angeles Times.

In the latest issue of New York Magazine, Chait's cover story 'Prump/Tutin' claims that Vladimir Putin is Donald Trump's "handler" and that he's a 'Manchurian Candidate' (Lol!) who ascended to the White House for the express purpose of serving the Kremlin.

NYMag itself blurbs about Chait's screed: a "plausible theory" [Lol!] of Trump's collusion with Russia.

Nobody, still (after 2 full years) knows what "collusion" means to begin with. All of this, without a shred of evidence of course.

POLITICO has put up an editorial (by Tom Nichols) about Chait's claims titled:
'What Jonathan Chait Gets Right About Trump and Russia'
with the byline:
"Thirty years of contacts with Russia are hard to dismiss as a series of disconnected events."

Maybe Trump's gonna broker a real estate sale of the Brooklyn Bridge to the Russkies, and it'll be reconstructed in Moscow?

Popular Mechanics needs to get over there and debunk Chait and New York Magazine, tout de suite. After all they did such a bang-up job [NOT] with the World Trade Center towers...
(New York Magazine) 'On the Cover: A Plausible Theory of Trump's Collusion With Russia'
 link to nymag.com

(POLITICO) 'What Jonathan Chait Gets Right About Trump and Russia'
 link to www.politico.com

I'm a little more inclined to give weight to the Nichols story - here is why: 11.Jul.2018 10:35

Clyde

First, Nichols is a Soviet/Russia expert, and he has a lot of experience in that area, both academically and otherwise. His take on the original piece is a bit more reasoned and does away with the manchurian candidate nonsense. It really focuses on the bizarre amount of influence and connections that exist between the two entities, and how that makes current events seem much more questionable.

As I said before, none of us have access to anything classified, so I'll withhold speculation until Mueller drops the bomb, or concludes there is no bomb to be dropped. The idea that the supposed "deep state" mysteriously decided to try and assist the DNC is laughable. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the last 40 years knows that the intelligence agencies have no tendency for helping the left.

^ ( "inclined to give weight".... ) 11.Jul.2018 12:16

Lol

lulz

****ing ~~ L_O_L ~~ .

ok then 11.Jul.2018 14:08

Clyde

What are your criticisms of the article? Aside from "lol"

I wrote this article. 11.Jul.2018 22:08

_

( my "criticisms" are seen ^^ above )

p.s. Clyde 11.Jul.2018 22:10

_

what is --> your envisioned reality for all of this "Russia" stuff?

I mean, once Trump is removed from the White House. Please clearly explain.

oh and Clyde, ever seen this movie (were you even born when it came out)? 11.Jul.2018 22:23

_

worth a watch for Russia truthers

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076804/
....... and miles to go before I sleep.

my envisioned reality 11.Jul.2018 22:26

Clyde

If he was removed from office I'd imagine Pence would replace him. Dems will gain control of Congress in the midterms. The GOP will throw their weight behind Pence, the DNC will back another absolute failure, probably Warren, or mess up their momentum somehow, and there will be 4 more years of republican power.

That would be my bet if we were in Vegas. But it will all depend on how big of a bomb Mueller drops. So I guess we just wait and see.

RE: "how big of a bomb Mueller drops" 11.Jul.2018 22:37

_

you taking bets / placing odds on this Clyde?


lemme know 'cause I'm ready to ante up.

it'll be a 'bomb' alright, just not the kind you think...

I Haven't seen Telefon 12.Jul.2018 08:05

Clyde

But I was certainly alive when it came out. I'm old enough to remember the Cold War and anyone who was alive back then and paying attention will recognize some of the same information warfare going on now. I bet you know what I mean.

What should we put odds on? The bomb, or the outcome? Those two things are only related if a certain sequence of events takes place, so we'd have to parlay our bets. None of this matters unless congress flips, so should we start there? Or should we just put a moneyline on whether or not Trump finishes his term?

comments not deleted are locked on the rAt ET page 12.Jul.2018 14:01

_

so much for freeze peach
unless you're a conspiracy loon
then you can post whatever you want...

comments not deleted are locked on the rAt ET page 12.Jul.2018 14:01

_

so much for freeze peach
unless you're a conspiracy loon
then you can post whatever you want...

RE: "I Haven't seen Telefon" 12.Jul.2018 15:05

_

Clyde you (and all Russia truthers) need to see that movie.


RE: "What should we put odds on"
I was referring to Trump being removed from office (or your words 'finishes his term', which he will in spades). I'll bet big bucks on that.

ok 12.Jul.2018 15:10

Clyde

So you bet that he'll finish his term. I think he will too honestly. I'd have a hard time making that bet.

Would you put money on him winning a 2nd? I think those are odds I could work with. Or throw your own wager at me. I love to roll the dice here and there.

I'll put some bitcoin on it if you have a wallet.

RE: Trump 12.Jul.2018 15:19

_

I don't do bitcoin but I am already seeking online betting venues for Trump not being impeached or forced to resign his current term.


( As to what happens after 2020 ..... never mind Trump, I think something else big is going to happen with western civilization which makes any sort of prognostication impossible at this point ..... Just my gut feeling. )


What did you think of Agent Strzok's open testimony today?

i bet you're right 12.Jul.2018 15:22

Clyde

prognostication is tough when so many things could happen. Let me know what odds you find. I saw 5/4 odds on impeachment but that is from January.

I haven't watched his testimony yet but I'll be checking it out sometime soon. Interested in what you thought.

I liked the part where Strzok 12.Jul.2018 15:36

_

insisted it was fine that he texted "she should win 100,000,000 to 1"

at the time when Hillary Clinton had not been nominated as the Democrat candidate, the GOP opposition candidate was unknown, and Strzok was tasked to investigate Secretary of State Clinton.

all of this, of course using a U.S. government electronic device on U.S. government (aka 'taxpayer') time.

Strzok claims the "fallen war hero" [debunked, in one of a bazillion attempts to sabotage Trump's candidacy] 'controversy' whipped up by U.S. corporate mass media, as his own "motivation" for his text messages; and that "in no way" did views expressed in his text messages impinge on his assigned job(s).

later, Mueller removed Strzok from the investigation.


Clyde here's your Russia truther 'investigation' in a nutshell 12.Jul.2018 16:44

_

Obama, Clinton, Comey, Lynch, Rosenstein, Wray, Stzrok, Mueller, all colluded to set up the "insurance policy".... everyone (U.S. corporate media "80% margin" and big GOP supporters+donors included) thought Hillary would be elected; and then in 2017-later they would bury it all.

Surprise! Trump won. Now Strozk looks like a smarmy dumbass as he tries to explain how "we will stop it" is not proof of a politically biased investigation. Must be "taken in context" he says. Surprised; only that he hasn't wound up like Vince Foster. Perhaps because there are too many involved in the _actual_ collusion to all be 'silenced'.

People might ask, "Where is Obama?" He is hiding because the whole 'witch hunt' was engineered under his 2014-2016 administration and the top acolytes all know it. No squealers or singing birds, yet... The FBI's own reputation as an agency of 'law enforcement' has completely dissolved in the U.S. public eye, between Strzok and Comey alone.

that is one possibility 12.Jul.2018 17:04

Clyde

The other option is that there is both evidence for some kind of collusion/improper contacts with Russian oligarchs and/or intelligence services, AND biased idiots within the FBI and efforts to prop up Clinton. One does not exclude the other.

I'm not saying you're wrong. But I am also not willing to abandon the idea considering what was laid out in the Nichols piece in Politico (not the manchurian candidate/agent since 1987 crap either) The idea that there was some long-term plan in this seems absurd. That hasn't stopped people from running with the idea of course.

Again, I do not excuse or ignore any bias in either direction - there was an anti-DNC faction in the FBI NY field office that leaked info to Nunes and possibly Giuliani, but I also don't think this is a complete fabrication, and I'm very interested to see what comes out in the final reveal.

RE: 'Russian oligarchs' Podesta / Manafort connection: 12.Jul.2018 17:16

_

--> *watch* the movie 'Get Me Roger Stone' (Netflix, 2017)

Excellent overview of corporate / big-$$$ lobbying and the 1980s formation of Black, Manafort and Stone.

Paul Manafort is an old-time Reagan-(even Nixon-)era shyster who has propped up despotic regimes worldwide, for decades.

Podesta Group (prominent Democratic lobbyist Anthony Podesta), of course, is an elite lobbying group closely knit with Bill and Hillary Clinton.



Here is an article from four years ago, concerning Podesta + Mercury's involvement in support of Ukrainian nonprofit :

February 25, 2014
_________________

Ukraine's D.C. Lobbyists in Disarray as Dictator [Yanukovych] Flees

They represented a strongman's allies in Washington. Now that the strongman is hiding, they're not sure who they serve.

Eli Lake 02.25.14 6:11 PM ET

Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine's deposed autocrat, could probably use his lobbyists in Washington now more than ever. The only problem at this point is that the lobbyists themselves are not sure whether they still work for him.

It's a risk built into the business of lobbying for foreign clients. Every now and again, the guys writing the checks are ousted from power. Take the government of Ukraine.

Two heavyweight lobbying firms sold their services to represent an innocuous sounding think tank based in Brussels, Belgium called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECFMU). Now those lobbyists are in limbo.

On paper, the Centre represented itself as a non-partisan research institution that pressed for Ukraine's integration with the European Union. In reality, it was closely tied to the party of Viktor Yanukovych and one of his principal financial backers, Sergei Klyuyev.

The two firms that got the ECFMU contract are the Podesta Group, which is run by the brother of White House special counselor John Podesta, Tony; and Mercury, a public relations firm staffed by former GOP Congressman Vin Weber and other Republican lobbyists.

 http://www.thedailybeast.com/ukraines-dc-lobbyists-in-disarray-as-dictator-flees

_________________


And predating the ^^ February 2014 news story by a few months, here is Reuters reporting on Podesta Group, Mercury (and others) in Ukraine, five years ago:


 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ukraine-lobbying-idUSBRE9BJ1B220131220

#World News December 20, 2013 / 12:37 PM / 4 years ago

With cash, Ukraine's political foes bring fight to Washington

Mark Hosenball and Warren Strobel

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rival political factions facing each other on the streets of Ukraine have also enlisted heavyweight lobbyists in Washington, some with connections at the highest levels of U.S. government, to promote their causes to American policymakers, media and members of Congress.

Among the high-profile lobbyists registered to represent organizations backing Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich's government are prominent Democratic lobbyist Anthony Podesta and former Republican congressional leaders Vin Weber and Billy Tauzin.

Meanwhile, Yanukovich's most prominent political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko, the former prime minister who is serving a seven-year prison term for alleged abuse of power, is represented in Washington by former Democratic Congressman Jim Slattery, a partner in the law firm Wiley Rein LLP.

The sums of money involved are substantial. Over the last two years, the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a Brussels-based organization sympathetic to Yanukovich and his political party, has paid $560,000 to Weber's firm, Mercury, and another $900,000 to Podesta Group Inc, for a total outlay of $1.46 million, according to a U.S. Senate database.

_________________

Lobbying firms such as the Podesta Group and Mercury are required to report such work on behalf of foreign governments under the United States Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA); which both firms much-belatedly did only this spring, after political heat of DOJ Russia investigations ramped up.

in the April 2017 Politico article linked below, Podesta Group in its tardy disclosure filing reports having received "more than $1.2 million from 2012 to 2014" from the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine for its work; the December 2013 Reuters article ^^ above reports "$900,000 to Podesta Group Inc over the last two years". Podesta Group appears to have received the lions share of lobbying work for the Ukraine job in any case.

 link to www.politico.com

interesting 12.Jul.2018 17:32

Clyde

I've been meaning to watch the Stone movie. On my list.

I was well aware of Manafort's history, particularly his involvement with Yanukovych. The Podesta history is new to me for the most part. I'll read those articles.

Clyde, for sure watch 'Get Me Roger Stone' it's a must see. 12.Jul.2018 18:08

_

*everyone* reading this needs to see 'Get Me Roger Stone'


yes the Manafort back-story (going back many decades) is extremely important to understand not only his recent legal sentencing, but also how he came to be positioned as a GOP-Trump campaign operative in 2015-2016.

( see 'Get Me Roger Stone' and ^^ articles, evidence elsewhere on Ukraine lobbying for more. )

it's out of control multibillion dollar K Street lobbying (which became entrenched in the 1980s thanks to the likes of Manafort), that of course is part of the 'swamp' encompassing Washington D.C.

Podesta Group worked hand in glove on the Ukraine lobbying :

from late 2017
---
The Podesta Group, a prominent lobbying and public relations firm, is one of the two unidentified companies mentioned in the grand jury indictment of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy Richard Gates, NBC News reported Monday.
The Podesta Group and Mercury Public Affairs are Companies 'A' and 'B' in the indictment.
---

Although Tony Podesta has now "shuttered" his lobbying firm in response to PG being named in the investigation last fall, there may (?) still be some revelation of his involvement to come in Mueller's investigation.

Strzok Admits Fusion GPS Russia Dossier Came from Nellie Orr to FBI 12.Jul.2018 19:56

_

this came at the very end of Strzok's testimony today, in response to Rep. Jim Jordan's questioning.

Nellie Orr was then working for Fusion GPS (who produced the Russia dossier, which the entire Trump-Russia case was based on):


^^ sorry it's : Ohr, not "Orr" 12.Jul.2018 20:04

_

has been misspelled in numerous media reports


Bruce Genesoke Ohr ( Bruce G. Ohr )

wife ( worked for for Fusion GPS) :
Nellie Ohr

jordan 12.Jul.2018 21:17

rAT

JIm Jordan likes wrestling with kids.

no deposit no return 12.Jul.2018 21:19

rAT

Trump just said that not all of the kidnapped children will be returned. So where the fuck ARE THEY??

hey rAT, has Trump been a Russian Asset since 1987? Yes or no. 12.Jul.2018 22:06

_

I've noticed that you've been going off the rails a bit lately (extraterrestrials, pizzagate, "child kidnapping rings" etc.)


did you by any chance co-sponsor the House of Representatives abolish ICE bill ?


Establishing a Humane Immigration Enforcement System Act


good timing 13.Jul.2018 10:55

Clyde

12 indictments against Russian military intelligence officers (GRU) involving the release of DNC and other emails/documents surrounding the election.

This links back to Guccifer (who we already knew was operating from Russia after his little VPN mishap several months ago).

I love watching Giuliani scramble to wrap things up. I guess we can stay tuned for more.

oh yea, nice work Federal Bureau Mueller You Snagged 'Em 13.Jul.2018 14:07

_

---> "All 12 defendants reside in Russia, and it is unlikely any of them will be tried in US court."


objective of "Russia Russia" investigation, again? Nobody knows...

another reason Rosenstein/Mueller indictments of today aren't 'News' 13.Jul.2018 14:18

_

Obama team was warned in 2014 about Russian interference

In 2014, the administration got a report of Russia's intention to disrupt Western democracies, including the United States.

By ALI WATKINS

08/14/2017 05:04 AM EDT

The Obama administration received multiple warnings from national security officials between 2014 and 2016 that the Kremlin was ramping up its intelligence operations and building disinformation networks it could use to disrupt the U.S. political system, according to more than half a dozen current and former officials.

As early as 2014, the administration received a report that quoted a well-connected Russian source as saying that the Kremlin was building a disinformation arm that could be used to interfere in Western democracies. The report, according to an official familiar with it, included a quote from the Russian source telling U.S. officials in Moscow, "You have no idea how extensive these networks are in Europe ... and in the U.S., Russia has penetrated media organizations, lobbying firms, political parties, governments and militaries in all of these places."


none of them will be tried, no 13.Jul.2018 14:29

Clyde

I don't think anyone has any illusion of that ever happening. It just ties things up in a little bow in terms of Russian intelligence activity that was vehemently denied by the GOP until the evidence was presented. Things will now progress, I believe, into the territory of who in the Trump campaign knew what was going on, and how involved they may have been in actively soliciting the assistance of these GRU officers. Roger Stone already admitted to corresponding to Guccifer months ago. I guess we'll have to wait and see what else is in the works.

And yes, Obama dropped the ball in a big way, and nobody seems to be holding him to account for that, which I think is quite disingenuous on the part of the media.

re: Roger Stone (and U.S. 2016 election more broadly) 13.Jul.2018 15:29

_

although complicit (with the likes of Paul Manafort) for decades, there's no way Stone's going to be held accountable/tried for the DNC 2016 hacking imbroglio. No way, either that Trump himself or his campaign can be tied directly to (DNC hacks), just isn't going to occur.

Seth Rich as a possible link hasn't been ruled out (oh it has, by the claimed "lack of evidence" in the "botched robbery"...) either.

furthermore, whatever happened with the Pakistani ISI tech helpers for Deb Wasserman-Schultz? The Democrats/DNC (see: John Podesta) were well known to have utterly sophomoric cyber-"security" among their operation and many elite party members-functionaries.

Distraction all, because it was Wasserman-Schultz herself who was fired outright (a "Nothing to see here" distraction move...) after the reveal came that the DNC had sabotaged the Bernie (its own party candidate) campaign. <--- *This* is what everyone ought be talking about / investigating to begin with. But not even former Bernie supporters seem to be interested.

Anyway, other countries attempt cyber-sabotage of other countries' political election campaigns all the time; U.S. included (and why isn't that investigated/reported on by U.S. corporate mass media?...). That isn't "news". As regards the 2016 presidential election, Clinton was supported by the vast majority of 1) U.S. corporate mass media 2) Political and corporate elites (in both funding and years of rhetoric) 3) Opposition Republican party members and long time GOP neocons (Kristol, 2008 Wall Street bailout czar Hank Paulson, etc.) 4) Pollsters, who for months predicted Hillary "landslide" and "80% +" margins right up until before the voting finished. Entire 2016 election, from the Bernie-sabotage and everything else, was rigged *in Hillary's favor*.

When the *opposition* party and elite supporters-members (GOP) therein spend millions to not only support the Dem candidate but then *also* to sabotage / undermine *their own* party's not-even-yet-decided nominee (the $$$ and plot-meeting to "Sink Trump" began months prior to his eventual convention nomination), then that (Clinton) is one pathetic candidate. If Trump was the 'pathetic' one, why did so much treasure get spent to undermine him *and* support his opposition? (All while Clinton herself had garbage levels of support from prior to her even announcing a candidacy, way back in 2014-earlier?)

so what possible effect could _any_ form of 'Russian hacking' (or 'social media crowd-striking', whatevs) have had? She was an extremely poor candidate, one of the worst ever fielded in U.S. presidential history, was absolutely hated for many years prior to 2016 for an armada of different reasons by the American right wing (GOP elite and rank-n-file)... In addition, her own party was Proven-Documented to have sabotaged her big primary winner opposition, Sanders. Nobody cares if run-of-the-mill, and Warned-about to Obama Administration since at least 2014, "Russian hacking" occurred *in terms of the Nov 2016 presidential vote outcome*. It's absolutely meaningless in that context. And, in the context of "Foreign Government Hacks The Other Foreign Government's Elections", is de rigeur / so what.

yep 13.Jul.2018 16:36

Clyde

Little to no argument from me on any of your points there. The one thing that will remain to be seen is how deep things go. Could be something, could be nothing.