- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
NYT Opinion Piece Agrees With Me on Russia (I Figure shite Out, Baws)
Posted on 8/2/17 at 5:31 pm
Posted on 8/2/17 at 5:31 pm
My theory about "Muh Russia" has been the following for months: "Yes Russia did it, but they didn't collude with Trump. In fact, they wanted people to think they were colluding with Trump. Their goal was simply to undermine our entire process and elevate their importance in the eyes of the world."
Now it looks like a former CIA operative (and Russian specialist) agrees with me. He wrote an Op-ed for the NYT: LINK
Exactly what I've been saying for months.
Yep. As I've said numerous times, most of the "evidence" of the collusion comes from NSA wiretaps of Russians talking to other Russians about Kushner or Page or Manafort. Almost none of the surveillance has picked up Trump people themselves on the line conspiring with Russians. If they had, it would have been leaked long ago. This is why they did so much unmasking -- they were hoping to find something directly from the horse's mouth that corroborated what the Russians were talking about among themselves. In reality they were simply getting played and made to look like fools by Putin.
This guy gets it. Putin wants everyone to THINK he owns Trump. It makes him look powerful and it scares the shite out of the NATO countries who themselves distrust Trump because of it. This, of course, plays right into Putin's hands.
I think I need to apply to the CIA since it's clear they could use my analysis. Their team of analysts they have now seem pretty incompetent (or just too full of Trump hatred to look at it objectively -- either scenario is bad for America).
Now it looks like a former CIA operative (and Russian specialist) agrees with me. He wrote an Op-ed for the NYT: LINK
quote:
But to me, the clearest evidence that this was a Russian influence operation is the trail of bread crumbs the Kremlin seemed to have deliberately left leading from Trump Tower to the Kremlin. This operation was meant to be discovered.
Exactly what I've been saying for months.
quote:
The meeting was arranged by a British publicist named Rob Goldstone, who told Donald Trump Jr. via email that his client, the Russian pop star Emin Agalarov, wanted to share incriminating evidence on the Clinton campaign that had been obtained from the Russian government. Sophisticated Russian intelligence tradecraft that was meant to be kept secret would not have permitted such an insecure opening gambit for establishing continuing communication with the Trump campaign. They would not have used something as insecure as email, or relied on liaison cutouts who could so easily be traced to the Kremlin.
Yep. As I've said numerous times, most of the "evidence" of the collusion comes from NSA wiretaps of Russians talking to other Russians about Kushner or Page or Manafort. Almost none of the surveillance has picked up Trump people themselves on the line conspiring with Russians. If they had, it would have been leaked long ago. This is why they did so much unmasking -- they were hoping to find something directly from the horse's mouth that corroborated what the Russians were talking about among themselves. In reality they were simply getting played and made to look like fools by Putin.
quote:
I can’t say how news of the meeting broke, but once it did, Mr. Putin achieved one of his goals: throwing the American government into greater turmoil amid the frenzied media coverage, escalating F.B.I. and congressional investigations and intensified political conflict. And with the revelation that Russia was behind the meddling, Mr. Putin achieved another objective: to allow Russia, despite its economic and military inferiority, to claim that it could rival the United States on the global playing field. He could do all this while denying, with a wink and a nod, any involvement.
This guy gets it. Putin wants everyone to THINK he owns Trump. It makes him look powerful and it scares the shite out of the NATO countries who themselves distrust Trump because of it. This, of course, plays right into Putin's hands.
I think I need to apply to the CIA since it's clear they could use my analysis. Their team of analysts they have now seem pretty incompetent (or just too full of Trump hatred to look at it objectively -- either scenario is bad for America).
12
Posted on 8/2/17 at 5:33 pm to AUstar
Thanks to our frantic Democrat friends the Russians won this round
Posted on 8/2/17 at 5:37 pm to AUstar
But NYT is #fakenews. What does that mean for your OP?
Posted on 8/2/17 at 5:39 pm to AUbused
quote:
But NYT is #fakenews. What does that mean for your OP?
It's an OP-Ed that's not the opinion of the paper itself.
The paper is just a vehicle for that Op-Ed.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 5:40 pm to AUstar
There was no down side for them. If Hillary won she is weakened by having all her shite aired before the world, if Trump won you get what we have now. And the best part for them is they didn't even really have to actually affect the election (which I don't think they did), they just had to appear to. Very little effort for a lot of payoff
Posted on 8/2/17 at 5:42 pm to AUstar
I think that is an entirely plausible scenario. But why the hell did everyone on Trump's team lie about their contacts with Russians?
Posted on 8/2/17 at 5:42 pm to AUstar
quote:Muh, NYT.
LINK
Actually, good find OP
Posted on 8/2/17 at 5:44 pm to narddogg81
quote:
There was no down side for them. If Hillary won she is weakened by having all her shite aired before the world, if Trump won you get what we have now. And the best part for them is they didn't even really have to actually affect the election (which I don't think they did), they just had to appear to. Very little effort for a lot of payoff
Eggxactly. Their payoff was huge. They put a quarter in the slot machine and got a $50k pay-off.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 5:51 pm to AUstar
So the argument is they did such a shitty job covering it up, it was impossible that they did it.
It is possible.
My experience with russians, at least in the technology space, is that they do a really half arse job at everything. Not just russians, but ukranians, romanians, etc.
They have great raw skills, but the educational system doesn't enforce discipline or standards. It leads to sloppy code, ineffectual processes, and mistakes.
I worked for a company that outsourced a ton of stuff to bulgaria. The reasoning being that you would have day overlap with them, vs. india or china where you don't. It wasn't a complete disaster, but we pulled all the tech stuff from them and just did BPO type stuff there (expense reports, etc)
It is possible.
My experience with russians, at least in the technology space, is that they do a really half arse job at everything. Not just russians, but ukranians, romanians, etc.
They have great raw skills, but the educational system doesn't enforce discipline or standards. It leads to sloppy code, ineffectual processes, and mistakes.
I worked for a company that outsourced a ton of stuff to bulgaria. The reasoning being that you would have day overlap with them, vs. india or china where you don't. It wasn't a complete disaster, but we pulled all the tech stuff from them and just did BPO type stuff there (expense reports, etc)
Posted on 8/2/17 at 5:52 pm to AUstar
Posted on 8/2/17 at 6:03 pm to AUstar
A response piece to that op-ed came out today.
LINK
quote:
The original plan drawn up by the Russian intelligence services was probably multilayered. They could have begun an operation intended to disrupt the presidential campaign, as well as an effort to recruit insiders to help them over time — the two are not mutually exclusive. It is the nature of Russian covert actions (or as the Russians would call them, “active measures”) to adapt over time, providing opportunities for other actions that extend beyond the original intent.
It is entirely plausible, for example, that the original Russian hack of the Democratic National Committee’s computer servers was an effort simply to collect intelligence and get an idea of the plans of the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate. Once derogatory information emerged from that operation, the Russians might then have seen an opportunity for a campaign to influence or disrupt the election. When Donald Trump Jr. responded “I love it” to proffers from a Kremlin-linked intermediary to provide derogatory information obtained by Russia on Hillary Clinton, the Russians might well have thought that they had found an inside source, an ally, a potential agent of influence on the election.
The goal of the Russian spy game is to nudge a person to step over the line into an increasingly conspiratorial relationship. First, for a Russian intelligence recruitment operation to work, they would have had some sense that Donald Trump Jr. was a promising target. Next, as the Russians often do, they made a “soft” approach, setting the bait for their target via the June email sent by Rob Goldstone, a British publicist, on behalf of a Russian pop star, Emin Agalarov.
They then employed a cover story — adoptions — to make it believable to the outside world that there was nothing amiss with the proposed meetings. They bolstered this idea by using cutouts, nonofficial Russians, for the actual meeting, enabling the Trump team to claim — truthfully — that there were no Russian government employees at the meeting and that it was just former business contacts of the Trump empire who were present.
quote:
Even intelligence professionals who respect one another and who understand the Russians can and often do disagree. On the Trump collusion question, the difference of opinion comes down to this: Would the Russians use someone like Mr. Goldstone to approach the Trump campaign? Our friend and former colleague Daniel Hoffman argued in this paper that this is unlikely — that the Russians would have relied on trained agents. We respectfully disagree. We believe that the Russians might well have used Mr. Goldstone. We also believe the Russians would have seen very little downside to trying to recruit someone on the Trump team — a big fish. If the fish bit and they were able to reel it in, the email from Mr. Goldstone could remain hidden and, since it was from an acquaintance, would be deniable if found. (Exactly what the Trump team is doing now.)
If the fish didn’t take the bait, the Russians would always have had the option to weaponize the information later to embarrass the Trump team. In addition, if the Russians’ first objective was chaos and disruption, the best way to accomplish that would have been to have someone on the inside helping. It is unlikely that the Russians would not use all the traditional espionage tools available to them.
However, perhaps the most telling piece of information may be the most obvious. Donald Trump himself made numerous statements in support of Russia, Russian intelligence and WikiLeaks during the campaign. At the same time, Mr. Trump and his team have gone out of their way to hide contacts with Russians and lied to the public about it. Likewise, Mr. Trump has attacked those people and institutions that could get to the bottom of the affair. He fired his F.B.I. director James Comey, criticized and bullied his attorney general and deputy attorney general, denigrated the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., and assails the news media, labeling anything he dislikes “fake news.” Innocent people don’t tend to behave this way.
LINK
Posted on 8/2/17 at 6:20 pm to GFaceKillah
quote:
But why the hell did everyone on Trump's team lie about their contacts with Russians?
Probably a knee jerk reaction to loaded questions. Sessions was asked if he met with Russians as a representative of the trump campaign. He said no. Media found meeting in his capacity as a senator and claimed he lied. The trump ,jr narrative is the most puzzling. Even if that meeting was exactly as it is portrayed...he did nothing wrong.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 6:22 pm to Hawkeye95
The Russian goal as stated by our IC was to instill distrust in the us election system. Democrats handed them their win. Republicans may have done the same. We will never know.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 6:24 pm to AUstar
quote:
Eggxactly. Their payoff was huge. They put a quarter in the slot machine and got a $50k pay-off.
Did they get a big pay off though? Because the president just reluctantly signed a bill of new and stronger sanctions targeting the Kremlin that has also handcuffed the president. Who seems to be one of the few overly sympathetic voices in government to reducing sanctions on them. I know the author points out the sanctions allow him to clamp down domestically and give the people an enemy to focus hate onto, which no doubt is something he likely now has better justification to do. But we also know how much Putin does want those sanctions gone. Because reality is they have harmed the economy and frustrated the oligarchs and powerful criminal elements that are in a conditional agreement with Putin. Elements that are unable to access many of their assets, travel, or access key markets with their businesses which sows discontent amongst them and down the hierarchal line.
It is certainly a very plausible explanation the author presents. Let me be clear on that. I am not sure how wise it is if intentional sloppiness for bread crumb purposes was/is part of the actual strategy though. At least long-term.
Say Clinton won, sure, the damage would hamper her presidency, but she probably remains very tough on Russia, and almost guaranteed to still have the support for increased sanctions and other retaliatory measures(probably incentivizes a strengthening of the NATO alliances). Trump wins and you have leaked or intentionally played loose with these bread crumbs and it sows chaos, sure, but the doubt also gets channeled into anger toward Russia, as we are seeing.
And its not like Russia usually has a perfectly clean track record with these operations. I often feel that especially the left, assumes far more competence, direct control, and tactical genius on the part of the Kremlin and Putin then past evidence suggests. One of the reasons our intelligence community was confident in their assessment of the origin of the hacks was because the digital footprints they uncovered - which were unique - were identical to the ones used in an even sloppier attempt at disinformation through leaked hacks in a German Parliamentary election a year or so prior.
It also is still plausible as well that Putin and the Kremlin may have concurrently had higher ambitions knowing that if they fall short, the operation just converts into what the author talked about here.
I guess what I am saying is that if nothing else, the framing of the op-ed as Putin being calculating and intentional, aiming for this very thing, if true, is probably not the best strategy since it seems to inevitably lead to a pretty hard wall that will impose new harms on your country no matter what way the cards fall.
This post was edited on 8/2/17 at 6:29 pm
Posted on 8/2/17 at 6:25 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
The Russian goal as stated by our IC was to instill distrust in the us election system.
It's also exactly what Trump was doing with talk about a "rigged election" before he was elected.
A little coincidental, eh?
Posted on 8/2/17 at 6:26 pm to Decatur
quote:
Innocent people don’t tend to behave this way.
This could have been left out and is telling if the authors goal. It is entirely speculation and in no way persuasive. The level of scrutiny and accusations against Donald trump is novel and there is no way to know how one innocent should react to it. In fact, using the same speculative basis...one could argue the response is perfectly logical if someone wrongfully accused.
It should be mentioned that even if trump is "guilty" of everything he is accused of...none of it is illegal. The DNC colluded with the Ukraine in precisely the way they accuse Trump. Nobody denies that. Nobody cares. Because it isn't illegal.
This post was edited on 8/2/17 at 6:28 pm
Posted on 8/2/17 at 6:29 pm to Decatur
quote:
quote: The Russian goal as stated by our IC was to instill distrust in the us election system. It's also exactly what Trump was doing with talk about a "rigged election" before he was elected. A little coincidental, eh?
He probably knew about the Ukraine DNc collusion.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 6:30 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
one could argue the response is perfectly logical if someone wrongfully accused.
I don't think this explains the lies.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 6:32 pm to AUstar
quote:
just too full of Trump hatred to look at it objectively
Is the correct answer
Similar to how some of us on the right are so filled with Clinton hatred that we wouldn't care if it was Putin that was responsible for exposing DNC corruption
They don't give a shite about Putins goal either if they can hurt trump with it
This post was edited on 8/2/17 at 7:07 pm
Posted on 8/2/17 at 6:33 pm to AUstar
quote:
Putin wants everyone to THINK he owns Trump.
He also wants to see America implode itself. He understands the media in the US is hard leaning left and that they would gobble this shite up like a fat kid with chocolate cake. He knew that the left would loose their collective minds about any potential ties between Trump and Russia. He knew they wouldn't let the story go even after investigations turned up nothing and that it would create a void among the American political system. A divided populus and government weaken the US. A weakened US makes Russia the most powerful nation in the modern world.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News